(Now known as Sony India Limited)

4) Where an arm‘s length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arm‘s length price so determined: Provided that no deduction under section 10A [or section 10AA] or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed

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

The appeal is allowed

4 conditions (a) to (d) stipulated in sub-section (3) are satisfied then, the assessing officer may proceed to determine the arm’s length price in 2013:DHC:1680-DB ITA No. 1114/2008 Page 10 of 26 relation to the international transaction in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

4. If answer to questions Nos.2 and 3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying the Cost Plus Method. 5. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that fresh bench marketing/comparability analysis should

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

4. If answer to questions Nos.2 and 3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying the Cost Plus Method. 5. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that fresh bench marketing/comparability analysis should

BSC C&C JV,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.705/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Bsc C&C Jv Assessing Officer, 74, Hemkunt Colony, Vs. National E-Assessment New Delhi. Centre, Delhi. Pan No. Aadfb8115G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

4 to 7 of grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.1,01,87,884/- made by the AO/TPO on account of interest receivables on advance given to I.T.A.No.705/Del/2021 M/s BSE C&C JV Nepal Pvt. Ltd. and TP Adjustment of Rs.37,71,124/- on account of interest paid

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

transfer pricing provisions. The AO allowed only 2% of turnover and balance was disallowed under section 40A(2) of the Act. On these facts when the matter was brought before the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee holding that the AO having considered transaction being international transaction and making a reference

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EFS FACILITIES SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

transfer pricing provisions. The AO allowed only 2% of turnover and balance was disallowed under section 40A(2) of the Act. On these facts when the matter was brought before the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee holding that the AO having considered transaction being international transaction and making a reference

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)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

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)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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

transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant in respect of payment of management service fees and arbitrarily determined arm's length price as 'Nil' by applying Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") Method in contravention of the provisions of Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ("the Rules"), thereby resulting in an adjustment of INR 42,784,366. 10. That

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)

C(7) of The Act. VIII. It is pertinent to note that provisions of section 80IA(8) read with section 80IB(13)/80IC(7) of The Act authorizes an assessing officer to make adjustments in claim of deduction by substituting fair market value of goods transferred from non-eligible unit to eligible unit, section specifically talks about market value that

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.

4. Transfer pricing study undertaken by the Appellant is placed at page 29 of paper book. Summary details of international transaction benchmarked can be seen at page 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

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

4 to section 9(l)(vi) to clarity for removal of doubts that transfer of any right in an intellectual property includes transfer of any right for use of a computer software irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. The amendment comes into operation with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. In view of this clarificatory amendment

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

4 to section 9(l)(vi) to clarity for removal of doubts that transfer of any right in an intellectual property includes transfer of any right for use of a computer software irrespective of the medium through which such right is transferred. The amendment comes into operation with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. In view of this clarificatory amendment

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 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction [or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) by the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the transaction entered by the assessee with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (“Adobe India”) has always been accepted at Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) by the preceding TPO(s). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

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

transfer pricing adjustment in that regard is warranted. We therefore set aside the order of the AO in this regard and allow the grounds urged by the assessee." 18. Again in the case of M/s. Bhansali & Co. (supra), the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT has decided the issue as under vide para No. 5 of the order