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

The appeal is allowed

section 92C of the said Act which stipulates four situations whereunder the assessing officer/ Transfer Pricing Officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction. If any one of those four conditions are satisfied, it would be open to the assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to proceed to determine the arm’s length 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

section 92B and the TPO has the jurisdiction to determine the ALP of such transaction.” 22. The conclusion of the majority of the ITAT in LG Electronics on the two questions were as under: (i) A transfer pricing adjustment in relation to AMP expenses incurred by the Assessee for creating and improving the marketing intangibles for its foreign

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

section 92B and the TPO has the jurisdiction to determine the ALP of such transaction.” 22. The conclusion of the majority of the ITAT in LG Electronics on the two questions were as under: (i) A transfer pricing adjustment in relation to AMP expenses incurred by the Assessee for creating and improving the marketing intangibles for its foreign

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)

section 92C(2) of the Act.” 8. Ground No.1,2 & 3 are related to the applicability of most appropriate method vis-à-vis computation of Arm’s Length Price(ALP) of international transaction. . ITA No.6835/Del2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 7 of 9 9. It is the contention of the assessee that for bench marking the international transaction, the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) by the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the transaction entered by the assessee with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (“Adobe India”) has always been accepted at Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) by the preceding TPO(s). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section (1) is not required. It is sufficient, if arm's length pricing issue of any international transaction has been referred to the TPO..... 52. The contention that AMP expenses are not international transactions has to be rejected... 53. We also fail to understand the contention or argument that there is no international transaction, for the AMP expenses were incurred

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

section (1) is not required. It is sufficient, if arm's length pricing issue of any international transaction has been referred to the TPO..... 52. The contention that AMP expenses are not international transactions has to be rejected... 53. We also fail to understand the contention or argument that there is no international transaction, for the AMP expenses were incurred

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

DCIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., GREATER NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 809,06,65,961/- on account of alleged brand building activity undertaken by the assessee for the AE as under:- Computation of TP adjustment Rs. Value of sales 1,25,64,10,00,000 AMP/Sales of the comparables 3.69% Amount that represents bright line 4,636,152,900 Expenditure on AMP by assessee

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Transfer Pricing Adjustment made in the impugned assessment order towards counter guarantee commission is thus grossly at odds with the factual position enunciated by the co-ordinate benches and hence such adjustment is totally uncalled for. 14. While holding so, we also advert to the plea raised on behalf of the revenue. The argument on behalf of the Revenue that

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 1448 would show that there is no provision for Technical Unit to make reference to TPO, as Technical Unit itself is authorised to perform functions of providing technical assistance for transfer pricing. Further delegation by one TPO (Technical Unit under faceless regime) to TPO (erstwhile physical assessment regime) is not permissible on a plain reading of provisions