ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

price. "Profits" are to be actual profits calculated on commercial principles. Amount taxed u/s 41(2) in the hands of company did not represent "accumulated profits" for the purpose of section 2(22) of the Act. • CIT v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. AIR [1969 SC 1058.= 2008 - TMI - 5136 - SUPREME Court] Share premium account is to be included in the paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

e) transactional net margin method; (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. (2) The most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arm’s length price, in the manner as may be prescribed: [Provided that ………..: Provided further that ……...] (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances? 4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour

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

The appeal is allowed

section 92C on the basis of such material or informaction or document available with him. After the Transfer Pricing Officer determines the arm’s length price, it is incumbent upon him to send a copy of the order to the assessing officer and to the assessee. In the present case what has happened is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

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:

Price Waterhouse as on 31.03.1998 which stands accepted; (h) Article IIIat page 22 of the paperbook confirms the family agreement to be of binding nature; (i) Consolidation of respective shares to each allotted group is captured in Article X at page 22 of paperbook; (j) Article IV at page 22 of paperbook records acceptance of all the Groups

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

22 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 rightly observed that without pointing any specific entry ‘credited’ in the ‘books of accounts’ of the assessee, the ld. AO was not entitled to make any additions under section 68. His conclusion that the troika of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions mandated under section 68 is sine quo non before making

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

22 of 54 ITA Nos.5029 & 5031/Del/2024 & CO No.42/Del/2025 rightly observed that without pointing any specific entry ‘credited’ in the ‘books of accounts’ of the assessee, the ld. AO was not entitled to make any additions under section 68. His conclusion that the troika of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions mandated under section 68 is sine quo non before making

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. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the Assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page

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. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the Assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

transferable in the manner provided by its articles, and are not of the nature of real estate." The aforesaid principles of respecting the distinct corporate identity was 12 reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decision of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. UOI reported in 341 ITR 1, wherein the Court held that companies and other entities are viewed

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the final assessment order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘the Act’) in pursuance of directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 21.06.2022 relevant

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

22,160\n688,50,77,825\n701,99,99,985\n20\nITA No. 2542/Del/2024\n04. It is evident that the subscribers to the above-share capital were all non-\nresidents on which provisions of section 56(2)(vib) is not applicable. Hence, as\nper the submission of the assessee company and records available, the\ncontention of the assessee is found

SOLITAIRE REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

price is arrived is part of the contract and\nthere is no material brought on record by the AO to show that the assessee\nhas in fact received the discount money as on-money. Therefore, we are\ninclined to agree with the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground\nno.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\n9. With regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SOLITAIRE REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

price is arrived is part of the contract and\nthere is no material brought on record by the AO to show that the assessee\nhas in fact received the discount money as on-money. Therefore, we are\ninclined to agree with the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground\nno.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\n9. With regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SOLITAIRE REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

price is arrived is part of the contract and\nthere is no material brought on record by the AO to show that the assessee\nhas in fact received the discount money as on-money. Therefore, we are\ninclined to agree with the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground\nno.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.\n9. With regard

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)

E- Vs. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, 2, ARA Centre, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, PAN No. AAACD0132H New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Singhvi & Satyajeet Goel, CA Department by: Shri Vivek Verma, [CIT] – D.R.; Date of Hearing 05.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 02.09.2022 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The present appeal is preferred by the Revenue

M/S. BHUSHAN STEEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The Revenue has filed appeal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, Kanpur-4[hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 14.07.2021 for Assessment Year2016-17. The Revenue and assessee has also filed cross appeals against the order of ld. CIT (A), Kanpur-4 dated 14.07.2021 for Assessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI vs. CLARIDGE HOTELS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, 12, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-1100011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0022B

price of the complimentary and also the various divisions. 15. With regard to service charges, the entire details and the method of accounting charges, and the amount of the services charges paid of Rs.1.23 Cr. have been duly mentioned at para 31 & 32 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8 Claridge Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 16. With regard