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)

section 92(3) of the Act, if after application of the transfer pricing principles the income of the Appellant is reduced then the 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

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)

section 92(3) of the Act, if after application of the transfer pricing principles the income of the Appellant is reduced then the 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

DENSO HARYANA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Denso Haryana Pvt. Ltd., Versus Dcit, Circle 10(1), B-1/D-4, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi. Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Badarpur, New Delhi. Pan:Aaacd6817F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv. Sh. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has further stated that the assessee is a routine manufacturer of automobile components and uses all the valuable intellectual property rights, know-how, copyrights and other commercial or marketing intangibles such as brand names, trademarks etc. owned by the DENSO group. 5. In the year under consideration, the assessee entered into various international transactions with

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

239,593,461 2,775,183 OP/PR 2.77% OP/OC 15.00% 9. In order to bench mark international transaction in the nature of import of finished goods and other aggregated transactions, TNMM was considered as the most appropriate method and the ratio of operating profit to operating sales was considered as the PLI. 10. During the course of TP assessment proceedings

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

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section

ADDL. CIT,SPL RNAGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable

M/S. XEROX INDIALTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

section 92CA of the Act, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) noticed that the assessee had incurred expenditure on AMP. After calling for and examining the necessary details, he observed that by incurring such expenditure, the assessee is 2 | P a g e AY: 2009-10 extending the reach of the brands owned by the AEs. Thus, the final beneficiary

GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (OSD) CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

transfer pricing adjustment by holding that the international transactions of the Appellant pertaining to provision of advisory & sourcing support services to its associated enterprise (“AE”) do not satisfy the arm’s length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have grossly erred in : 5 ITA.No.1349/Del./2022 GAP International Sourcing (India) Private Limited

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

Price (“ALP”) of the International transactions entered into with its Associated Enterprises (“AE”) during the relevant AY under consideration. 3.1 The details of the international transactions entered by the assessee with its AE during the AY 2010-11 are as under:- S.No. Description of the transactions Amount (Rs.) 1 Purchase of goods 809,184,336 2 Sale of goods

UOP INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

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

section 234B of the Act.” 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- (i) Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting high margin comparables contested by the taxpayer and allowing to retain other low margin comparable in the final set of the TPO not opposed by the taxpayer, which were discharging similar nature of functions even while

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

section 1448 of IT Act, the case was duly transferred to the jurisdiction AO, who has no previous idea about the assessment proceedings in the case. However it is pointed out, that, even during the DRP stage and even after providing opportunity by AO, the assessee could not submit any evidence with respect to bank statement of assessee and also