ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LTD,IRELAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in terms indicate above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Ltd., 406, Riverwalk, Citywest Circle-1(1)(1), Business Campus, Saggart, International Dublin 24, Ireland Taxation, Pan-Aahca7203M New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld.Acit, Circle-International Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi Dated 24.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

transfer pricing documentation.” 10. There is no gainsaying that factually the issue stands on identical footing in relation to preceding assessment years, as, both the Assessing Officer and learned DRP have decided the issue following their earlier decisions. That being the case, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench, as referred to above, we hold that the amount received

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

transfer prices of its international transactions; Business support services segment (sub-grounds 2.09 to 2.12) 2.9. distorting the comparability analysis conducted by the Appellant in the TP Documentation and fresh search analysis; 2.10. including certain companies that are not comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed and excluding certain comparable companies on arbitrary

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,DUBLIN (IRELAND) vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the additions made by the Ld. AO in the impugned case deserve to be deleted on the merit for the year under consideration. Thus, the grounds raised are allowed and appeal of asseessee ...

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmastay Application No.52/Del/2024 (Ita No.3672/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Adobe Systems Software Ireland Vs Acit, Limited, Circle-1(1)(1), Dublin (Ireland), International Taxation, 4-6, Riverwalk, Citywest Business New Delhi. Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, Ireland. Pan: Aahca7203M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: Heard & Perused The Records. 2. The Stay Application In Hand Has Been Filed For The Stay Of Demand In Regard To Ay 2021-22 And, During The Course Of Argument, It Was Submitted By Ita No.52/Del/2024

transfer pricing officers so the case of the Appellant for the year under Ld. AO. 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (“Ld. AO”) had asked the Appellant to show cause as to why the assessment may not be completed on similar lines as earlier years

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

PHOENIX LAMPS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

section 92B of the Act and thereby no benchmarking is required thereon. Accordingly, we direct the ld. TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of the alleged extension of CG and SBLC on behalf of these two parties. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 to 4.5 raised by the assessee are allowed on merits. 25. The grounds No.5

PHOENIX LAMPS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

section 92B of the Act and thereby no benchmarking is required thereon. Accordingly, we direct the ld. TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of the alleged extension of CG and SBLC on behalf of these two parties. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 to 4.5 raised by the assessee are allowed on merits. 25. The grounds No.5

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned AO have grossly erred

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned AO have grossly erred

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned AO have grossly erred

ERM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT (JAO- DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shriyogesh Kumar Us & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5459/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Erm India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Building No.10, Vs. Income Tax Department, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, (Jurisdictional Ao: Deputy Gurugram, Haryana. Commissioner Of Income-Tax), Pan No.Aaace1502C Circle 7(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C(13) & 144B of the Act. of the Act, for assessment year ("AY") 2021-22 at INR 10,30,99,092 as against declared income of INR 9,41,14,830 by the Appellant. B. TRANSFER PRICING GROUNDS: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/DRP erred in making a transfer pricing

RICS INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), HARYANA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmarics India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Gf-17, Ground Floor, Assistant Commissioner Of Block B, Vatika Atrium Income Tax/ Income-Tax Centre 53, Gurgaon Officer, National Faceless 122002 Assessment Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcr7432K

transfer pricing adjustment made in the sum of Rs 49,07,766/- qua these two transactions deserve to be deleted. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 10 to 12 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. 9. The Ground No. 13 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest under section 234A of the Act. The learned AO is directed

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(2)(1), New Delhi dated 30.12 2019 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, to the total income of the assessee. 5. The case for the captioned year was picked up for scrutiny assessment and consequent to appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the National Faceless Assessment Centre had passed an order under section

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD,GURUGRAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(2)(1), New Delhi dated 30.12 2019 u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, to the total income of the assessee. 5. The case for the captioned year was picked up for scrutiny assessment and consequent to appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the National Faceless Assessment Centre had passed an order under section

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

price to the Lessor. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Lease Deed which reads as under: “5(a) The Lease shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the industrial plot except with the previous consent in writing of the Lessor which

ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE, MAURITIUS

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Ddit, Snc Et Compagnie, Circle-1(2), 605, St. James Court, International Taxation, St. Denies Street Port Louis, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Adit/Dcit/Acit, Snc Et Compagnie, Range - 1, 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, International Taxation, 24 Cyber City, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

price is paid, the US companies go out of the dragnet of Indian taxation. He also adverted to Article 5(6) to state that the mere fact that a 100% subsidiary may be carrying on business in India does not by itself means that the holding company would have a PE in India. Further, according to learned counsel

ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Ddit, Snc Et Compagnie, Circle-1(2), 605, St. James Court, International Taxation, St. Denies Street Port Louis, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Adit/Dcit/Acit, Snc Et Compagnie, Range - 1, 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, International Taxation, 24 Cyber City, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

price is paid, the US companies go out of the dragnet of Indian taxation. He also adverted to Article 5(6) to state that the mere fact that a 100% subsidiary may be carrying on business in India does not by itself means that the holding company would have a PE in India. Further, according to learned counsel

ESS DISTRIBUTION MAURITIUS S.N.C. ET COMPAGNIE,MAURITIUS vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Ddit, Snc Et Compagnie, Circle-1(2), 605, St. James Court, International Taxation, St. Denies Street Port Louis, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ess Distribution (Mauritius) Vs. Adit/Dcit/Acit, Snc Et Compagnie, Range - 1, 5Th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, International Taxation, 24 Cyber City, Ebene, New Delhi Mauritius Pan :Aabfe6800F (Appellant) (Respondent)

price is paid, the US companies go out of the dragnet of Indian taxation. He also adverted to Article 5(6) to state that the mere fact that a 100% subsidiary may be carrying on business in India does not by itself means that the holding company would have a PE in India. Further, according to learned counsel