TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

price of share as on 31.03.2006] [Screenshot of BSE India website is attached @ page 341 of paperbook - II] 3. FMV of 98,81,296 shares of BIL as on 1.04.2006 [1*2] Rs.136,36,18,848 3. For completeness it may be highlighted that subsequently on 28.02.2008, the shares of BIL were split in the ratio of 1:5, thereby

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the Assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the Assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

section 56(2)(viib). It is evidenced, during the appellate proceedings, by the\nfact that M/s. Otter Ltd has immediately sold certain no of shares to an India\nbased Indian resident entity. M/s. Link Investment Trust. It is clearly evident\nthat if M/s. Link Investment Trust had bought the shares of the appellant-\ncompany at such a huge premium

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

transferred to various units including the units eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of the act based upon the sales ratio of all manufacturing units. 4. During assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 assessment orders were passed under the provisions of Section 153A/143 (3) of the act based upon search and seizure operations carried out under the provisions

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

36,101 ITeS segment (BPO) 1,55,69,706 Total 2,90,05,807 10. In the nutshell, the grievance of the assessee relates to the benefit of working capital adjustment not allowed by the Ld. AO; addition of Rs. 2,90,05,807/- to the income of the assessee on account of adjustment in ALP of the international transaction

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

pricing were partly allowed and restored to the CIT(A) for further examination.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(1)", "92CA(3)", "36(2)", "10B(1)(e)(iii)", "92C(2)", "10B(4)", "46A" ], "issues": "The key issues involved are the validity of transfer

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Transfer Pricing adjustment of INR 13,66,36,735. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble DRP and Ld. AO/TPO erred in making an adjustment of INR 13,66,36,734 to the returned income of the Appellant in respect of the international transaction pertaining to “receipt of counter guarantee commission

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 92D(1) and Rule 10D(1) and Rule 10D(4) of the Rules direct that, the comparison should be based on contemporaneous data. It needs to be appreciated that requirement of the existence of information and documentation doesn’t override the provisions of Rule 10B(4)of the Rules regarding the mandatory use of current financial year data

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transferred to a separate account styled "the share premium account" and further says that the provisions of the Companies Act relating to the reduction of the share capital of the company shall apply as if the share premium account were paid up share capital of the company. Sub-section (2) mentions five purposes for which alone the share premium account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), C.R BUILDING, ITO NEW DELHI vs. M M HEALTHCARE LTD., PUSHPANJALI, EAST DELHI, ANAND VIHAR, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Pushpanjali, East Delhi, New Delhi Anand Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.238/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3522/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. M. M. Healthcare Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Pushpanjali, East Delhi, Tax, Circle-16(1), Anand Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1799D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.3522/Del/2025 Along With The Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No.238/Del/2025 For Assessment

section 143(1) processing dated 07.08.2023 itself reading as under: “7. Decision: Appellant has raised 4 grounds of appeal. 7.1. Ground No. 1: This ground no. 1 is relates to disallowance of bad debts of Rs.73238717/-. The Appellant is engaged in the business of medical/health care services and has been regularly filing its income tax return. The fact

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36,25,157/-. As per the computation of capital gain mechanism on the date of transfer, the capital gains will be determined based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed and the law prescribes claim of deduction of expenditure incurred on such transfer, indexation cost of acquisition and improvement. Therefore, there is no mechanism to determine

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36,25,157/-. As per the computation of capital gain mechanism on the date of transfer, the capital gains will be determined based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed and the law prescribes claim of deduction of expenditure incurred on such transfer, indexation cost of acquisition and improvement. Therefore, there is no mechanism to determine

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.

36 of paper book. Proceedings before Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) 5. Copy of Ld. TPO’s order dated 30.07.2021 can be found at page 2 of Appeal set. Ld. TPO mentioned that reference was received from AO- Technical Unit. It is respectfully submitted that under section