JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Officer was made u/s 92CA of the Act. The TPO vide order dated 24/10/2019 has proposed substantive adjustment of Rs. 89,48,34,092/- by treating the Arms Length Price of royalty at 2% against the 5% claimed by the assessee along with a protective addition of Rs.149,13,90,154/-. 5. The draft assessment order u/s 144C

GE INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. ,HARYANA vs. DC/ACIT IT& TP 2 (1)(1), DELHI

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

35A before Dispute Resolution Panel. Ld. DRP vide order dated 10.11.2021 has called for inclusion / exclusion of certainfilters after verification and directed the adjustment u/s 92CA on account of international transaction related to software development services was revised to Rs.6,59,84,529/- from Rs. SA No. 74/Del/2022 7,04,93,545/- . The final assessment order came to be passed

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2017-18

35A of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for stay of recovery of demand of tax and interest amounting to Rs. 6,83,71,320/- pertaining to the assessment year (“AY”) 2017-18. The stay application came up for hearing on 25.02.2022. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the issues involved in the appeal

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment (if any) should only be attributed to the quantum of international transactions and not the entire cost base of the taxpayer. Further, reliance may be placed on the following rulings: (a) Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 1814 of 2013) (Refer para 6 pages 196-197 of the convenience paper

ORACLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 35A was applicable. The price paid for the master copy or royalty payment did not involve transfer of intellectual

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.

Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA of the Act: consequently, the limitation to pass the Final Assessment Order was extended by 12 months under Section 153(4) of the Act. 4 Objections filed by the Appellant before the 27.10.2023 Dispute Resolution Panel in Form 35A

COIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalcoim India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Shop No. 4, Ground Floor Income Tax, Income Tax Rajendrabhawan, Patel Nagar, Department, Circle 4(2), East Central Delhi, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabcy0901A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA of the Act: consequently, the limitation to pass the Final Assessment Order was extended by 12 months under Section 153(4) of the Act. 4 25.10.2023 4. Objections filed by the Appellant before the Dispute Resolution Panel in Form 35A

ALFANAR ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM, HARYANA, INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURUGRAM, GURUGRAM, HARYANA, INDIA

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

35A before the DRP and the primary arguments of the assessee was against re-characterization of the CCDs issued by AEPL into equity as well as rejection of benchmarking analysis undertaken using Bloomberg database and NSDL database. The Panel considered the submissions and the fact that the Ld. TPO has mentioned that: "5.2 The assessee has submitted that

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1), , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljohnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Luthra & Luthra Law Income Tax, Circle 13(2) Office India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Spm Civic Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Johnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Appeal 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Business Centre, Income Tax Center, Gurgaon, Road, South Department West Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv& Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available\nstands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time\nlimit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021.\n18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O.\nunder Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is\nclearly beyond

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MAYLASIA SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL (BRAZIL) TECHNOLOGIES DA INFORMACAO EIRELI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD,AUSTRALIA vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BELGIUM BVBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL MEXICO S. DE R L,MEXICO vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES GERMANY GMBH,GERMANY vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves