THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 3 Smart Cube India Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner of Income- tax W.P.(C) 12844/2021 2010-11  Income-tax return (ITR) filed by the Petitioner returning income of Rs. 3,78,120 was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 3 Smart Cube India Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner of Income- tax W.P.(C) 12844/2021 2010-11  Income-tax return (ITR) filed by the Petitioner returning income of Rs. 3,78,120 was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under section

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

9. Undisputedly, in the transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO, in order dated 18.02.2022, has observed that the international transaction between the assessee and the Indian AE are at arm’s length and has not proposed any further adjustment, in so far as, it relates to transaction of business support services. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is, whether

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

9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TΡΟ have erred in undertaking an adjustment on account of payment of management service fees. In doing so, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have rejected the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily

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

9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TΡΟ have erred in undertaking an adjustment on account of payment of management service fees. In doing so, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO have rejected the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily

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

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

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

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

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 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

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON INC.,USA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the Arms Length Price who vide his order dated 07.01.2016 did not report any adverse inference, for making adjustments. However, the Assessing Officer observed that during the course of assessment the assessee was asked to submit the details of receipt from India along with the copy of agreement/contracts with Indian Customers or any other party

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINTON, USA,WASHINGTON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(2) INT.TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the Arms Length Price who vide his order dated 07.01.2016 did not report any adverse inference, for making adjustments. However, the Assessing Officer observed that during the course of assessment the assessee was asked to submit the details of receipt from India along with the copy of agreement/contracts with Indian Customers or any other party

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. 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

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

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]

9. Without prejudice, the TPO/AO/DRP/NFAC erred in ignoring that the Appellant was a full fledged licensed manufacturer in India. 10. Without prejudice, the TPO/AO/DRP/NFAC erred in ignoring various decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court/ Tribunal, which clearly state that no adjustment can be made on account of AMP Expenses in the case of a licensed manufacturer, until