COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of Section 92C of the Act. The price has to be determined by using any one of the methods stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (2

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2 (47) of the Act. The meaning of transfer in Section 269UA(f) has to be restricted for the purposes of Chapter XXC. The ITAT also held that merely because the payment of instalment was shown as lease rental, it could not be said that the instalments paid did not form part of the price

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2 (47) of the Act. The meaning of transfer in Section 269UA(f) has to be restricted for the purposes of Chapter XXC. The ITAT also held that merely because the payment of instalment was shown as lease rental, it could not be said that the instalments paid did not form part of the price

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

section 55(2)(1), cost inflation index was to be applied with effect from 1-4-1981 instead of the year of acquisition by the assessee. 46. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sushil Kumar: 231 Taxman 788 held that where capital asset was property of HUF prior to 1.4.1981 and assessee acquired absolute ownership

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

section 56(2)(viib). It is evidenced, during the appellate proceedings, by the\nfact that M/s. Otter Ltd has immediately sold certain no of shares to an India\nbased Indian resident entity. M/s. Link Investment Trust. It is clearly evident\nthat if M/s. Link Investment Trust had bought the shares of the appellant-\ncompany at such a huge premium

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

price on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

Transfer Pricing - ED071553767IN 12.04.2022 2(2)(2), Delhi 4. Further, it is informed that the above said direction was not sent through e mail. SAURABH SHARMA DCIT(DRP-2), Delhi (Sec)” 8. Based on this it was argued by the ld AR that when the ld DRP‟s directions got uploaded in ITBA portal way back on 07.04.2022 itself

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

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

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the present case in not proving the benefit of deduction of +5% as per proviso to section 92C(2

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

price of acquired land. It may be noted that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 34 of Land Acquisition Act only if there is delay in payment of compensation on or before taking possession of the acquired land. He has further submitted that award of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 discretionary and is determine

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

section 144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant's objections to the proposed adjustments, and merely relied on the reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - I (2

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

2) of section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

pricing were partly allowed and restored to the CIT(A) for further examination.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(1)", "92CA(3)", "36(2)", "10B(1)(e)(iii)", "92C(2)", "10B(4)", "46A" ], "issues": "The key issues involved are the validity of transfer