DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(j) any foreign company.\n45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made —\n(i)\nin sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the\n\"Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are\nvested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure

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)

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

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(j) any foreign company.\n45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made -\n(i)\nin sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the\n\"Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are\nvvvested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 7. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, the relevant provisions are as under: Fresenius Kabi Oncology

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

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

253 or in clause\n(c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

253 or in clause (c)\nof sub-section (2) of section 260A.\n(4) Where the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the\ncase may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the\nfinal decision on the question

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand allowed in terms of the above order and the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

5, concerning the definition of permanent establishment, the mere fact that a person has attended or even participated in negotiations in a State between an enterprise and a client will not be sufficient, by itself, to conclude that the person has exercised in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise. This would hold good

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand allowed in terms of the above order and the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

5, concerning the definition of permanent establishment, the mere fact that a person has attended or even participated in negotiations in a State between an enterprise and a client will not be sufficient, by itself, to conclude that the person has exercised in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise. This would hold good

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand allowed in terms of the above order and the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

5, concerning the definition of permanent establishment, the mere fact that a person has attended or even participated in negotiations in a State between an enterprise and a client will not be sufficient, by itself, to conclude that the person has exercised in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise. This would hold good

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand allowed in terms of the above order and the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

5, concerning the definition of permanent establishment, the mere fact that a person has attended or even participated in negotiations in a State between an enterprise and a client will not be sufficient, by itself, to conclude that the person has exercised in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise. This would hold good

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand allowed in terms of the above order and the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

5, concerning the definition of permanent establishment, the mere fact that a person has attended or even participated in negotiations in a State between an enterprise and a client will not be sufficient, by itself, to conclude that the person has exercised in that State an authority to conclude contracts in the name of the enterprise. This would hold good