LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub- section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

M/S. ASIAN HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Dcit, Ltd., Intl Taxation, Vs. C/O. Pds Legal New Delhi Atmaram Mansion, Office No.7, First Floor, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Pricing Officer before the said date, or a reference under sub-section (1) is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before sixty days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in section 153, or as the case

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

16A which is as under: “16. Repayment of Option Price by Dabur to CUIH Dabur shall repay to CUIH the Option Price under this Agreement only under the following circumstances: If the Market Value received by Dabur for Dabur Shares (a) sold pursuant to Clauses 16.6, 16.9.2.1 or 16.9.2.2 is higher than the Subscription Price, Dabur shall repay the Option

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

16A which is as under: “16. Repayment of Option Price by Dabur to CUIH Dabur shall repay to CUIH the Option Price under this Agreement only under the following circumstances: If the Market Value received by Dabur for Dabur Shares (a) sold pursuant to Clauses 16.6, 16.9.2.1 or 16.9.2.2 is higher than the Subscription Price, Dabur shall repay the Option

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CASIO INDIA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92CB which provides for the "safe harbour" rules for determination of the ALP, can be applied only if the TP adjustment involves substitution of the transaction price with the ALP. Rules 10B, 10C and the new Rule 10AB only deal with the determination of the ALP. Thus, for the purposes of Chapter X of the Act, what is envisaged

CASIO INDIA CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92CB which provides for the "safe harbour" rules for determination of the ALP, can be applied only if the TP adjustment involves substitution of the transaction price with the ALP. Rules 10B, 10C and the new Rule 10AB only deal with the determination of the ALP. Thus, for the purposes of Chapter X of the Act, what is envisaged

YOGESH JUNEJA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 218/Del/2020 (A.Y 2015-16)

16A of that Act. Explanation - For the purposes of this section "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (4) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

JE ENERGY VENTURES P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

16A, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh) (PAN : AAACE0653K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anubhav Rastogi, Advocate Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2020 Date of Order : 30.09.2020 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, JE Energy Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘taxpayer’) by filing

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer of the shares by Dabur to CUIH while working out resultant capital gain thereon” and also stated that for the earlier years CIT(A) has also allowed the appeal of the assessee which was reproduced as under: Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in assessee’s own case, no adverse inference is drawn on this issue.” 9. Now during

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

transfer of the shares by Dabur to CUIH while working out resultant capital gain thereon” and also stated that for the earlier years CIT(A) has also allowed the appeal of the assessee which was reproduced as under: Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in assessee’s own case, no adverse inference is drawn on this issue.” 9. Now during

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer (―TPO‖) to determine the arm‘s length price (―ALP‖) in respect of such international transactions. In case of such an eligible assessee, (as also defined in sub- section 15(b) of section 144C of the Act), the assessing officer is mandatorily required to pass proposed order of assessment (hereinafter referred to as ‗draft assessment order‘). Once

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer (―TPO‖) to determine the arm‘s length price (―ALP‖) in respect of such international transactions. In case of such an eligible assessee, (as also defined in sub- section 15(b) of section 144C of the Act), the assessing officer is mandatorily required to pass proposed order of assessment (hereinafter referred to as ‗draft assessment order‘). Once

JUBILANT ENERGY PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS JE ENERGY VENTURES PVT. LTD.),NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

16A, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh) (PAN : AAACE0653L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2018 Date of Order : 15.01.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. JE Energy Venture Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the taxpayer’) by filing the present

JE ENERGY VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

16A Vs. Delhi Institutional Area Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 PAN:AAACE0653L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, AR Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. . This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 27/01/2022 passed

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything