MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Transfer Pricing Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT? 32. However, on the next date i.e. 30th October 2014, the Court was of the view that the said appeal should be de-linked and passed the following order

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)

price on date of transfer. Special auditor reported that during year under consideration unit has transferred work in progress and for working out value of such transfer, unit has followed same methodology as followed for valuation of its closing work in progress. Therefore, he held that unit has transferred goods in form of work in progress to eligible unit below

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 analysis of Adobe India has been undertaken and the ALP has been determined which has been accepted by the Ld. AO, nothing further would be left to be attributed to Adobe India as the alleged PE of the assessee in India and that accordingly would extinguish the need for attribution of any additional profits to the alleged

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

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

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., GREATER NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

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

Section 133(6) of the Act to enable the Assessee I.T.A. No.1065/Del/2022 11 to place its response and defend its stance on application of MAM. It was thus submitted that ITAT, in first round, has not adjudicated the application of CUP as MAM to benchmark the impugned transactions. 11. We have heard the rival submission on the transfer pricing adjustment

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.

section 1448 would show that there is no provision for Technical Unit to make reference to TPO, as Technical Unit itself is authorised to perform functions of providing technical assistance for transfer pricing. Further delegation by one TPO (Technical Unit under faceless regime) to TPO (erstwhile physical assessment regime) is not permissible on a plain reading of provisions

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

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses are sustainable in case entity-level operating margins realized by Appellant under TNMM are higher as compared to comparables? (h) Without prejudice to the above, whether the Tribunal erred in not appreciating that in view of decision of this Court in Sony Ericsson (supra), AMP transaction was closely linked to the imports