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

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

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

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,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

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

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

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.

9(1)(i) of the Act to accrue or arise in India shall be only such part of the income as is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India. He submitted that in that view of the matter, without prejudice to the argument that the Assessee does not have PE in India, that sales commission is not attributable

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

9 No. 566 of 2023. Reliance was further placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Steel and Power Limited reported in 460 ITR 162 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined the principle for determination of market value of goods and services for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) INT. TAX., DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Years: 2017-18

transfer pricing issue and grossly erred on facts and in law in disregarding established judicial pronouncement in India on the issue that once an arm’s length price has been determined for the Indian association enterprise [Adobe Systems India Private Limited (“Adobe India”) in the present case] which subsumes the functions, assets and risk (“FAR”) profile of the alleged

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.

9. That the assessing officer erred on the facts andin law in charging interest under section 234C of the Act at Rs. 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