HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

prices with retrospective effect have always been accepted as revenue deduction, including payments made during the relevant year. Therefore according to him , during the relevant previous year, the appellant made aggregate provision of Rs. 6159.90 lacs, comprising of Provision for purchase orders issued for price amendment as at 31.3.2012 of Rs. 1034.90 lacs and Provision on estimated basis for price

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

pricing adjustment relating to intra group services. After hearing both the sides we find that the above grounds relating to intra group services are identical to Ground of appeal No.1 to 1.7 in ITA No.5535/Del/2016. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed. Following similar reasonings, the above grounds by the assessee

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2008-09 Agilent Technologies Vs Acit, (International) Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.Cp-11, Gurgaon. Sector-8, Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan: Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shrey Chakarborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th October, 2012 Passed U/S 144C/143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee, Agilent Technologies (International) Private Limited Is A 100% Subsidiary Of Agilent Technologies International Europe, Bv Which In Turn Is A Wholly Subsidiary Of Agilent Technologies, Inc. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Provision Of Software Development (It) Services & Information Technologies Enabled Services (Ites). It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2008 Declaring The Taxable Income Of Rs.90,31,260/-. Since The Assessee Has Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Ae, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo U/S 92Ca Of The It Act For Determination Of The Alp Of The International Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Aes. During The Course Of Tp Assessment Proceedings, The Tpo Noted That The Assessee Has Entered Into The Following International Transactions As Mentioned In The Tp Study Report:-

section 133(6) of the Act. Apart from placing reliance on the judicial decision cited above, including the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee has brought on record evidence that this company is functionally dissimilar, and different from the assessee and hence is not comparable. Therefore the finding excluding it from the list of comparables

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

pricing principles under Section 40A(2) and Chapter X-A. The assessee must establish: (a) The operating costs were arm's length (b) The apportionment to assessee was arm's length (c) Documentation was contemporaneously maintained The assessee has failed on all three counts. The vague "mutually agreed" language in the MOU, the absence of detailed cost accounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

pricing principles under Section 40A(2) and Chapter X-A. The assessee must establish: (a) The operating costs were arm's length (b) The apportionment to assessee was arm's length (c) Documentation was contemporaneously maintained The assessee has failed on all three counts. The vague "mutually agreed" language in the MOU, the absence of detailed cost accounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

pricing principles under Section 40A(2) and Chapter X-A. The assessee must establish: (a) The operating costs were arm's length (b) The apportionment to assessee was arm's length (c) Documentation was contemporaneously maintained The assessee has failed on all three counts. The vague "mutually agreed" language in the MOU, the absence of detailed cost accounting

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee. The TPO first determined the Arm’s Length Price of the intra group services availed by the assessee. The TPO was of the view that the assessee had not received any benefit from such services and hence

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1) - NATIONAL E-ASSESMENT ORDER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

Transfer Pricing documentation; 1.4. disregarding the elaborate documentary evidence submitted as part of assessment proceedings to erroneously assume that ‘no benefit’ has been conferred upon the Appellant from the international transactions pertaining to availing of intra-group services and thereafter re-determining the ALP of the said transaction as ‘NIL’; and 1.5. disregarding the receipt of services by the Appellant

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

JAYPEE SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the terms as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

price that is paid upfront. They transfer substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership to the lessee who virtually becomes the owner of the lands on leasehold basis. 2) The recurring annual lease rent is small compared to the lease premium. It is only to maintain the nominal title of the lessor. It does not reflect the real

JAYPEE SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the terms as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

price that is paid upfront. They transfer substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership to the lessee who virtually becomes the owner of the lands on leasehold basis. 2) The recurring annual lease rent is small compared to the lease premium. It is only to maintain the nominal title of the lessor. It does not reflect the real

JAYPEE SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, all the appeals are disposed of in the terms as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kant

price that is paid upfront. They transfer substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership to the lessee who virtually becomes the owner of the lands on leasehold basis. 2) The recurring annual lease rent is small compared to the lease premium. It is only to maintain the nominal title of the lessor. It does not reflect the real

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

194I of the Act. However, the deal could be materialized and were got cancelled by the buyer M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and part of the advances were repaid also. All these agreements and cancelled agreement were found and seized during the course of search and are available in the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

194I of the Act. However, the deal could be materialized and were got cancelled by the buyer M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and part of the advances were repaid also. All these agreements and cancelled agreement were found and seized during the course of search and are available in the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GARDENIA SHELTERS (P) LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

price. The Supreme Court held that there was no power to impose levies and what could not be done directly could not be done indirectly by using the regulatory powers given to that Authority.” 3.4 By applying the above ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court it can be said that time for filing appeal U/S 253(1) cannot be extended

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

transferring & handing over specified bare shell buildings located within the project. This MOU of Co-Developer Agreement was approved by the SEZ authorities vide their approval letter bearing Ref. No. F.2/126/2005-EPZ dated 01.05.2007. The clauses of the Addendum to the MOU for appointment of Co- Developer Agreement, inter alia, included that the assessee, being a Developer shall hand over

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

transferring & handing over specified bare shell buildings located within the project. This MOU of Co-Developer Agreement was approved by the SEZ authorities vide their approval letter bearing Ref. No. F.2/126/2005-EPZ dated 01.05.2007. The clauses of the Addendum to the MOU for appointment of Co- Developer Agreement, inter alia, included that the assessee, being a Developer shall hand over