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

270A of the Act.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee is a company incorporated under the laws of Ireland and is a tax resident of Ireland in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Ireland (“India-Ireland DTAA”). It is therefore entitled to the beneficial provisions of the India- Ireland DTAA. The assessee is engaged in licensing

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

8. That the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in undertaking adjustment, on a without prejudice basis, on account of payment of royalty by rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant and determining arm's length royalty rate as 2% of the sales. In doing so, Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred: 8.1. in assuming that 'no benefit

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

8. That the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred in undertaking adjustment, on a without prejudice basis, on account of payment of royalty by rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant and determining arm's length royalty rate as 2% of the sales. In doing so, Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have erred: 8.1. in assuming that 'no benefit

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

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

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

8,095/- in respect of inter-unit transactions pertaining to TTB Segment. VI. Transfer of Electricity by Captive Power Plant (CPP) unit at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and at Dahej, Gujarat – Adjustment of Rs. 15,57,92,582/- in Bhiwadi Plant and Rs. 26,82,36,157/- in Dahej Plant - Total Adjustment of Rs. 42,40,28,739/- 36.0 That

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

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

8,095/- in respect of inter-unit transactions pertaining to TTB Segment. VI. Transfer of Electricity by Captive Power Plant (CPP) unit at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and at Dahej, Gujarat – Adjustment of Rs. 15,57,92,582/- in Bhiwadi Plant and Rs. 26,82,36,157/- in Dahej Plant - Total Adjustment of Rs. 42,40,28,739/- 36.0 That

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

8,095/- in respect of inter-unit transactions pertaining to TTB Segment. VI. Transfer of Electricity by Captive Power Plant (CPP) unit at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and at Dahej, Gujarat – Adjustment of Rs. 15,57,92,582/- in Bhiwadi Plant and Rs. 26,82,36,157/- in Dahej Plant - Total Adjustment of Rs. 42,40,28,739/- 36.0 That

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

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

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

transfer pricing-order giving effect and simultaneously in final assessment order dated 24.10.2024. 35. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the TPO has rejected the comparables selected by the assessee by applying incorrect filters. He further submitted that one of the comparable included by the TPO namely ‘KRBL Ltd.’ has already treated as incomparable

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

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.

8,63,466 as against correct interest of Rs. 5,33,170. 10. That the assessing officer erred on the facts and in law in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A

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.

8,63,466 as against correct interest of Rs. 5,33,170. 10. That the assessing officer erred on the facts and in law in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A

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]

8. Without prejudice, the TPO/AO/DRP/NFAC erred in observing that the Appellant was a subsidiary of Holland based company and was carrying out distribution activities as well as development of marketing intangibles for its Associated Enterprise (“AE”), all of which is factually incorrect. 9. Without prejudice, the TPO/AO/DRP/NFAC erred in ignoring that the Appellant was a full fledged licensed manufacturer

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

270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee has also moved an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated 08.02.2024 seeking admission of additional ground which read as under: “"Re: Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs 12,01,42,780 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts