LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

250,684 6 Computer 2,358,491 7 Office Equipments 1,228,519 8 Furniture & 7,602,787 Fixtures 9 Electric 45,103,409 Equipments Computer Software 1,283,424 TOTAL 653,533,002 RISKS ASSUMED In any business, an organization has to bear many kinds of risks to earn a return. Following are risks associated with LIPL: 1. Financial

M/S ATOTECH INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to the above issue is allowed with above direction

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Atotech India Ltd, Acit, 66, Km Stone, Nh-8, Gurgaon Circle, Vs. Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan:Aaccm0338G (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) is bad in law . 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, while confirming the addition of Rs. 58,923,746/- made by the Ld. AO / TPO the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred: 2.1. in misinterpreting the provisions of Section 926 of the Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).] [(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).] [(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).] [(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Yakult Danone India P Ltd. D.C.I.T. Circle 27(1) 16, 1St Floor Vs. New Delhi Community Centre Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I New Delhi

section 92(2) of the Act, so as to be subjected to arm’s length test under Transfer Pricing provisions. 4.19. Economic vs. legal ownership of intellectual property. Ld.Counsel submitted that, assessee is a joint-venture between Yakult Japan and Danone Singapore. He submitted that there is no economic sense in joint-venture incurring huge expenditure in India for benefit

STERIA INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAQL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey

M/S STERIA NDIA LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey

STERIA (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 8 , NEW DELHI

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

250 – 252/Del/2020 [Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15] M/s. Steria (India) Limited, Addl. CIT, Building No. 4, Sea View SEZ, Vs. Special Range : 8, Plot No. 21–21, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida – 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey

M/S. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiagilent Technologies Acit, (International) Pvt. Ltd, Circle-1, Vs. Plot No.-Cp-11, Sector-8, Gurgaon Imt Mangsar, Gurgaon Pan: Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271 (1) © of the income tax act and ground No. 5 is with respect to the charging of the interest and ground No. 6 is regarding various judicial pronouncement. Penalty and interest are consequential. In view of the above facts, we dismiss those grounds as stated above. Therefore only grounds to be adjudicated remain are ground

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of orders dated 02.03.2006 and 18.12.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle- II(2), Chennai-34 (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") for the Act for assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. ITA No.3195 & 3196/Del/2017 2. Both the appeals involve similar facts

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of orders dated 02.03.2006 and 18.12.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle- II(2), Chennai-34 (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") for the Act for assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. ITA No.3195 & 3196/Del/2017 2. Both the appeals involve similar facts

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act") arising out of orders dated 02.03.2006 and 18.12.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle- II(2), Chennai-34 (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") for the Act for assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. 2. Both the appeals involve similar facts, grounds and issues

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

transfer price” of Rs. 1241.32 crores, which was a mutually negotiated and agreed consideration. Clause 3.2 of the said Agreement provided that the parties would request Kotak, a SEBI registered Category I merchant banker, to prepare a valuation report relating to the fair market value of VIL pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Framework Agreement dated 5.7.2007, to confirm

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

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:

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3). 49[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

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:

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3). 49[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing