DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Sub-section (3) of Section 92CA provides that the TPO, after taking into account the material available with him shall, by an order in writing, determine the ALP in accordance with sub section (3) of Section 92C of the Act. Sub- section (4) of Section 92CA provides that on receipt of the order

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

1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MENTOR GRAPHICS (NOIDA) PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price is determined by employing the most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices. There is no dispute that the prices which are to be considered while computing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising Marketing and Promotion Expenses ('AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer with regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2012. 2. Whether

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising Marketing and Promotion Expenses ('AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer with regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2012. 2. Whether

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee through e-proceedings module. 4. Assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Herba Foods S.L.U., Spain and is engaged in rice milling activities in India. It procures raw paddy from the farmers and processed the same to produce rice. 5. The case of the assessee was referred to Transfer

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

4,68,86,17,357/- while framing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act.\n11. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment on account of purchase of raw material

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer passed\nunder sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(ii) any foreign company.]\"\n15. A plain reading of Section indicates that it is obligatory on\nthe part of the AO to forward a draft Assessment Order as per\nthe provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Act. The sub-Section\n(1) of Section 144C being

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer passed\nunder sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(ii) any foreign company.]\"\n15. A plain reading of Section indicates that it is obligatory on\nthe part of the AO to forward a draft Assessment Order as per\nthe provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Act. The sub-Section\n(1) of Section 144C being

M/S. SERCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 2241/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No. 94-95, Udyog Vihar, Phase- Circle-4(1), Iv, Gurgaon-122016 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs6704P Assessee By : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

section 234 A, 234B & 234C of the Act.” 3. The appeal is against addition of Rs. 1,66,43,316/- on account of upward adjustment in arm’s length price of the appellant’s international transaction related to providing IT services to its AEs. 4. The assessee, Serco India Private Limited, is a subsidiary of Serco Group PLC, UK, incorporated

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

4. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law in levying interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 5. That the Ld. AO erred in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(e) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof.” 3. Briefly stated the assessee

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) of the Act passed.\nDraft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act passed.\n: Limitation for passing the final assessment order expired on\n30.09.2023 i.e. 30 months (18 months+ 12 months) from April 01, 2021\nin view of section 153(1) read with section 153(4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.]” 11. The fact that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ is not in dispute. The assessee being an ‘eligible assessee’, the procedure prescribed u/s 144C(1) of the Act is applicable and the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.]” 11. The fact that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ is not in dispute. The assessee being an ‘eligible assessee’, the procedure prescribed u/s 144C(1) of the Act is applicable and the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.]” 11. The fact that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ is not in dispute. The assessee being an ‘eligible assessee’, the procedure prescribed u/s 144C(1) of the Act is applicable and the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company.]” 11. The fact that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ is not in dispute. The assessee being an ‘eligible assessee’, the procedure prescribed u/s 144C(1) of the Act is applicable and the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed