DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing Officer vide order dated 14 September 2011 accepted the ALP of the all international transactions undertaken by the appellant. He further stated that the CIT – A has also erred in upholding the addition on account of the alleged transaction of issue of corporate guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate guarantee given by the assessee

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing Officer vide order dated 14 September 2011 accepted the ALP of the all international transactions undertaken by the appellant. He further stated that the CIT – A has also erred in upholding the addition on account of the alleged transaction of issue of corporate guarantee without appreciating that there was no corporate guarantee given by the assessee

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

197. By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or r. 8D be interpreted to mean that the entire tax-exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in s. 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proportion or portion

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Transfer Pricing analysis should ideally be made on a transaction by transaction basis. It has also been argued that each of the international transaction under dispute viz. purchase of spare parts, provision of technical services, provision of global marketing services were distinct and independent transactions and warranted separate analysis so as to determine the ALP. Also comparative analysis has been

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Transfer Pricing analysis should ideally be made on a transaction by transaction basis. It has also been argued that each of the international transaction under dispute viz. purchase of spare parts, provision of technical services, provision of global marketing services were distinct and independent transactions and warranted separate analysis so as to determine the ALP. Also comparative analysis has been

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Transfer Pricing analysis should ideally be made on a transaction by transaction basis. It has also been argued that each of the international transaction under dispute viz. purchase of spare parts, provision of technical services, provision of global marketing services were distinct and independent transactions and warranted separate analysis so as to determine the ALP. Also comparative analysis has been

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

price of the international transaction of IT services was determined by selecting 14 comparable companies whose average profit level indicator was 16.89%. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 63. The first contention of the assessee is that there is an incorrect computation of operating profit margin of the assessee as foreign exchange income amounting

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Transfer Pricing Officer vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Transfer Pricing Officer vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Transfer Pricing Officer vide letter dated 20.12.2013. In order to verify the correctness of the exploration expenses paid by the assessee for AY 2006-07 to 2012-13  The assessee filed detailed objections to the assumption of jurisdiction vide letter dated 05.03.2014.  The assessee in response to notice under section 153C filed income-tax return (‗ITR‘) on 18.03.2014 returning income

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

197/- only against the declared turnover of Rs. 8,65,33,094/- which was increased by the assessee due to voluntary Transfer Pricing adjustment. The Ld. Sr. DR emphasised that this income does not form part either of the profit and loss account or the balance sheet and it is only a notional figure used by the assessee

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

section 92CA. Consequently, the reference appears to be invalid, and the transfer pricing and subsequent proceedings also appear to be time barred. In this context it is necessary to make following submissions – (a) time barring being a mandate to the forum, Hon’ble Tribunal may have to decide this preliminary aspect (b) assuming time barring aspect is decided in favour

WM INDIA TECHNICAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiwm India Technical & Vs. Dcit, Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd, Circle-27(2), E-20, First & Second Floor, Hauz New Delhi Khas, New Delhi Pan: Aaacw7112N (Appellant) (Respondent)

197,970/- against the income returned by the assessee of ₹ 43,445,360/-. 10. The assessee filed its objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, New Delhi (The Learned DRP). The learned DRP passed direction u/s 144C (5) of the act on 21st September 2016 whereby the objections of the assessee were rejected on account of transfer pricing adjustment

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) were bad in law as the pre- requisite for applying Chapter-X, ie, existence of an international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under the provisions of section 92B of the Act, was not satisfied or existed in the present case. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order