SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

prices at which power was purchased from respective State Electricity Board. 64. In a case where the assessee operates a Wind Power Mill (WPP) unit at Tamil Nadu to generate electricity primarily for consumption by its manufacturing units. During the year, the assessee had transferred the WPP units at effective rate of Rs. 6.35 p.u, based on fact that Tamil

GLOBAL LOGIC INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT TPO-2(1)(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

section 92C. (1) ........................................................ (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:— development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail. (3) An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if- (i) none of the differences

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing report, applying TNMM, erroneously concluding that the appellant has determined the ALP of trading transaction by comparing its entity wide margin with comparable companies. Goodyear India Ltd. 4.2 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in applying RPM with internal comparable not appreciating that the non-AE segment too, has substantial related party transaction

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing report, applying TNMM, erroneously concluding that the appellant has determined the ALP of trading transaction by comparing its entity wide margin with comparable companies. Goodyear India Ltd. 4.2 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in applying RPM with internal comparable not appreciating that the non-AE segment too, has substantial related party transaction

TECHNIP INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing provision will not be applicable. It is submitted that the said benefit of set-off has been provided to the Appellant by the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16, basis which adjustment was deleted by TPO. Please refer page 340 and 343 of the paper book volume 2. The said benefit was also provided to the Appellant

TECHNIP INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing provision will not be applicable. It is submitted that the said benefit of set-off has been provided to the Appellant by the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16, basis which adjustment was deleted by TPO. Please refer page 340 and 343 of the paper book volume 2. The said benefit was also provided to the Appellant

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

pricing adjustment made in the sum of Rs 1,20,54,020/- in respect of international transaction towards payment of royalty. 5. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 raised by the assessee is about Disallowanceofdepreciation amounting to Rs. 12,47,17,47,967/- in respect of right to use 3G Spectrum. 5.1 Considered the rival submissions and material placed onrecord. Brief

GBT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,OSD, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

197 services 3.3 The draft assessment proposing following additions/disallowances was sent to the appellant assessee: (i) the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 73,454,905 on account of availing transition support services from the AE, (ii) the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 32,536,272 on account of provision of operational and business support services to AE (iii) the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

197-A, Saket, Meerut for a consideration of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- on 21.07.2020 and has claimed exemption of Rs.2,81,58,300/-u/s 54 of the Act on account of investment made in new under construction residential flat/apartment in Building Complex known as Lotus 300 in Sector 107, Noida vide purchase agreement dated 30.07.2020 from her husband

NDTV WORLDWIDE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT 18(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmandtv Worldwide Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccn9121G

197(9) of the Companies Act 2013 stipulates that if any director draws or receives, directly or indirectly, by way of remuneration any such sums in excess of the limit prescribed or without approval required under this section, he shall refund such sums to the company, within two years or such NDTV Worldwide Ltd lesser period as may be allowed

GOLDEN AGRI RESOURCES (INDIA) P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Golden Agri Resources Vs. Acit (Osd) ( India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 208-A E-10=12 Triveni Complex, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-1100092 Pan No.Aarcs0961K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Nishant Saini, Ar Sh. Vinamra Vij, Ar Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024

section 92F: 13. Since the market quotes were available on corresponding dates and when corresponding dates data was not available on the date of contract entered between the assessee and its AE, therefore, in our considered view the “other method” has been rightly applied by the assessee. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders

PANASONIC INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,GURGAON vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshpanasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Neac, 12Th Floor, Ambience New Delhi Corporate Office, Tower-2, Ambience Island, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcp9391B

Section 92BA of the Act; 3.5. and risks assumed by the Appellant; including United Telelinks (Bangalore) Limited as a comparable company on arbitrary/frivolous grounds without giving due consideration to functions performed, assets employed, 3.6. including Motorola Mobility India Private Limited as a comparable company on arbitrary/frivolous grounds without giving due consideration to functions performed, assets employed, and risks assumed

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,56,78,332 7.1 Our attention was drawn to the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 in assessee’s own case wherein similar issue arose for consideration and the Hon’ble Tribunal keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case deleted

DASSAULT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

section 92CA (3) of the Act confirming the addition made in draft assessment order. The assessee’s business is segregated into the following three operating segments from transfer pricing standpoint :- (i) Trading of software; (ii) Provision of business support services; and (iii) Provision of software related professional services. 5 ITA No.8469/Del./2019 4. Aggrieved by the adjustment, the assessee filed