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)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

251/-. Transfer Pricing Grounds of Appeal 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO/AO/CIT(A} have erred in rejecting certain companies and adding certain functionally dissimilar companies to the final set of alleged comparable companies on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies for benchmarking the International transaction

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

251/-. Transfer Pricing Grounds of Appeal 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO/AO/CIT(A} have erred in rejecting certain companies and adding certain functionally dissimilar companies to the final set of alleged comparable companies on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies for benchmarking the International transaction

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 92C (2) of the Act.\n11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nhave erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for\ncomparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of\nthe Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price.\nCORPORATE

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42 \nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission of additional\nevidences

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

transfer pricing study report where the type of services rendered and received by the assesee is shown along with basis of the allocation, details of services availed, manner in which services rendered and details of benefit derived is mentioned. He further referred to page No. 250 of the paper book which are bills for the services availed by the assesee

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO had vide a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 17 September 2018 rejected the TNMM analysis (aggregated approach) adopted by the assessee. Instead, the TPO chose to apply the CUP method and thereby proposed three third party royalty agreements (with an ALP of 1.50%). This SCN was responded to vide 33 Samsung India Electronics. submission dated

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

section, reference is also invited to schedule 8 of the P&L a/c where in, the communication expenses are claimed of only around 35 lakhs which is less than 1% of the turnover. As usually the ITes companies have lot of communication expenses, thus this company cannot be taken as involved in ITes functions. Thus this company M/s E Infochips

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

section, reference is also invited to schedule 8 of the P&L a/c where in, the communication expenses are claimed of only around 35 lakhs which is less than 1% of the turnover. As usually the ITes companies have lot of communication expenses, thus this company cannot be taken as involved in ITes functions. Thus this company M/s E Infochips

DCIT, CIRLCE- 1(1) (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING CORP. (INDIA BRANCH), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

251,594 from American Express Travel Related Services Company 11. Receipt of technical support services TNMM 333,211 from AESEL UK 5. The assessee benchmarked its international transactions on TNMM; however, the Ld. TPO applied CUP method. Objections raised by the assessee were addressed by the Ld. TPO as evident from his order. The assessee raised the issue of multiyear

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

transfer pricing provisions in the final assessment order is contrary to the position of law and factual matrix and thus requires to be reversed. 38. In essence, it is the case of assessee that revenue has merely alleged existence of arrangement to invoke rigours of Section 80IA(10) of the Act merely on the ground that the eligible units have

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are allowed subject to the above directions

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumartupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range 9, 204 – 206, Tolstoy House, New Delhi. 15, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaact3770D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 26.10.2018 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for shot ‘the Act’) on account of non-deduction tax for payment towards software charges, intranet & IT cost reimbursements aggregating to Rs.143,20,849/- 4. Upon assessee’s objection, ld. DRP upheld the TPO’s order. 5. Against the assessment order passed in this case, assessee has filed this appeal

M/S. ARIBA INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

transfer pricing adjustment.” 16. Accordingly, it is the submission of the assessee that when the transaction between the assessee and Ariba India is at arm’s length there cannot be any further attribution in the hands of the assessee in India. In this regard, ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the ruling pronounced by the Authority of Advance

M/S. ARIBA INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

transfer pricing adjustment.” 16. Accordingly, it is the submission of the assessee that when the transaction between the assessee and Ariba India is at arm’s length there cannot be any further attribution in the hands of the assessee in India. In this regard, ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the ruling pronounced by the Authority of Advance

ARIBA INC.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

transfer pricing adjustment.” 16. Accordingly, it is the submission of the assessee that when the transaction between the assessee and Ariba India is at arm’s length there cannot be any further attribution in the hands of the assessee in India. In this regard, ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance on the ruling pronounced by the Authority of Advance