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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act. During such proceedings, - the TPO, vide notice dated 25.02.2021, inter-alia, required the assessee to submit the details of change in shareholding structure and other international transactions [refer pages 97-98 of paperbook]; and - in response thereto, the appellantvide reply dated 07.07.2021 submitted (as Annexure-11 to the reply

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:

43[or an order under section 92CA, as the case may be], may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case

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:

43[or an order under section 92CA, as the case may be], may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case

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

43,56,141/- vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.10.2024 as against the returned loss of Rs. 98,71,60,760/- and thereby making erroneous additions of Rs. 4,44,75,24,909/-.\n3. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the orders so framed

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

43,04,251/-. Transfer Pricing Grounds of Appeal 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO/AO/CIT(A} have erred in rejecting certain companies and adding certain functionally dissimilar companies to the final set of alleged comparable companies on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies for benchmarking

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

43,04,251/-. Transfer Pricing Grounds of Appeal 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned TPO/AO/CIT(A} have erred in rejecting certain companies and adding certain functionally dissimilar companies to the final set of alleged comparable companies on an ad-hoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable companies for benchmarking

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 adjustment in terms of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act... 43 where an assessee has failed or not furnished a report in respect of an international transaction, a specific reference for the said transaction under sub-section (1

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 adjustment in terms of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act... 43 where an assessee has failed or not furnished a report in respect of an international transaction, a specific reference for the said transaction under sub-section (1

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)

43[For purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means- price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in (i) open market; or arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where (ii) transfer of such goods or services is a specified domestic transaction referred to in section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

price of the land to APIL and simultaneously obtained possession of the plots. It would appear that one of the conditions of the agreement was that in case the allotment of plots is cancelled later, the assessee will be liable for 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 3 of 40 cancellation charges of 10% of the cost

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

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

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

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

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

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