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

2% based on the fresh search undertaken by the Ld. TPO during the course of proceedings by adopting the methodology similar to that adopted by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation. Page 4 of 46 ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

2% based on the fresh search undertaken by the Ld. TPO during the course of proceedings by adopting the methodology similar to that adopted by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation. Page 4 of 46 ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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.

270A.” 10. The assessee also filed clarificatory/supplementary ground of appeal under rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the same is reproduced below: "24. Impugned order is time barred as no valid reference appears to have been made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO”) as prescribed under section 92CA of the Act." 11. At the time of hearing

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

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 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

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

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 the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB.‖ (e) 12. It was also pointed that as per section 270A

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

ROLLS-ROYCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT TP 3(2)(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

transfer pricing adjustment for excess credit period (over and above 30 days) as deemed loan and interest adjustment has been made by taking SBI Prime Lending Rate ("PLR") plus 2 percent i.e. 16.45 percent 9. erred by exceeding jurisdiction while erroneously re- characterizing inter-company receivables as advancing of loan in the absence of any statutory provision and thereby entire

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

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

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

2) of the Act the same falls below the tolerance level of +/- 3%. We thus direct to delete the adjustment made on account of interest income on foreign currency loans. Thus, Ground of appeal No. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed. Ground no 7: Sale of Hybrid Seeds – Addition of Rs. 1,44,00,000/- 34. Apropos, ground

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

2 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 pricing adjustment of Rs. 21,92,40,676/- in relation to the specified domestic transactions undertaken by the appellant. 3.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO to the income of the appellant not appreciating that the addition / disallowance ought to have been restricted

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

270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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

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

270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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

270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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