ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

270A or] section 271 or section 271 BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,- (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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

1,74.64.31,465/- as business profits to the alleged Dependent Agent PE of the Appellant in India. 2.2 Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP failed to appreciate that attribution of profits to the alleged PE is a transfer pricing issue and grossly erred on facts and in law in disregarding established judicial pronouncements

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.

1) and Section 144B(5) of the Act. Thus, the assessment proceedings are vitiated in law and liable to be quashed. Grounds against addition proposed in relation to transfer of specified asset 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order is bad in law as the adjustment made in relation to transfer

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

1) of section 143; (e) the amount of deemed total income assessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been filed; (f) the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

270A or section 271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,— (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains

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

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

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

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

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

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

270A r.w.s 274 and 271AAC of the Act are being initiated separately and this order is being passed after taking prior approval of the CIT, CC-4, New Delhi.”. 7. While completing the draft assessment order, the aforementioned remarks make it abundantly clear that what the Assessing Officer has framed is final assessment order and, by any stretch of imagination

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

1. That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (“NFAC”), to the extent is prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law. 2. That the NFAC erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), in respect of the assessment proceedings of the Appellant, which

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

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

transfer pricing report, applying TNMM, erroneously concluding that the appellant has determined the ALP of trading transaction by comparing its entity wide margin with comparable companies. 4.2 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in applying RPM with internal comparable not appreciating that the non-AE segment too, has substantial related party transaction as almost

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

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

transfer pricing report, applying TNMM, erroneously concluding that the appellant has determined the ALP of trading transaction by comparing its entity wide margin with comparable companies. 4.2 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in applying RPM with internal comparable not appreciating that the non-AE segment too, has substantial related party transaction as almost

MCKINSEY KNOWLEDGE CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1) , DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

transfer pricing order dated 1 September 2021 (which was passed by the learned TPO before completion of proceedings before Hon'ble DRP). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ TPO / Hon'ble DRP have erred in passing orders which suffered from computational errors in determination of the Appellant's operating margin and consequently

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

pricing adjustment amounting Rs 1,07,01,24,795/- to the total income completely ignoring the amount of deduction u/s 80-IA claimed for Rs 47,78,80,266/-. b) The ld. AO while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act has considered an imaginary figure of book profits at Rs. 68,32,26,303/-, however the correct