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:

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) under section 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“Act”) for ascertaining arm’s length price (“ALP”) of the above transactions. The Ld. TPO vide order dated 18.10.2016 has proposed to make the following adjustments :- S. No. Type of International Transaction Total Value of Transaction (Rs.) 1. Intra Group Service - Employee 34,11,787 Secondment

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

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Years 2017-18 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Years 2017-18 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Years 2017-18 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order

AYATNA REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'); 3.3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining the ALP and rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

AYATNA REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'); 3.3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining the ALP and rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

GREENLAND FINANCE AND LEASING P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'); 3.3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining the ALP and rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

GREENLAND FINANCE AND LEASING P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'); 3.3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on application of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining the ALP and rejecting the filters applied by the Appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Transfer Pricing (\"TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules');\n3. 3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the\nAppellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on\napplication of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining

WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,206, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-3,NEW DELHI-110020 vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(2), NEW DELHI

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

Transfer Pricing (\"TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules');\n\n3. 3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the\nAppellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on\napplication of the erroneous additional /revised filters

WRIGLEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-27(2), DELHI

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

Transfer Pricing (\"TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules');\n3. 3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the\nAppellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on\napplication of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining

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)

Transfer Pricing, rule is to benchmark transactions by transactions. Only if the transactions are closely linked, then the same can be aggregated, but aggregation is more of exception, than a rule. If the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson has held that AMP is the separate international transaction specially in the case of distribution companies

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)

Transfer Pricing, rule is to benchmark transactions by transactions. Only if the transactions are closely linked, then the same can be aggregated, but aggregation is more of exception, than a rule. If the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson has held that AMP is the separate international transaction specially in the case of distribution companies

DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Transfer Pricing (\"TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules');\n3. 3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the\nAppellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on\napplication of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining

JCIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Transfer Pricing (\"TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules');\n3. 3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the\nAppellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on\napplication of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining

DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Transfer Pricing (\"TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of\nthe Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules');\n3. 3. distorting the economic and comparability analysis undertaken by the\nAppellant in the TP Study and conducting a fresh comparability analysis based on\napplication of the erroneous additional /revised filters in determining