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

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

transfer 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

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

price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C. This exercise at one end is to accept or discredit the TPSR of the assessee on the other hand obliges the TPO to make an independent enquiry of his own on the question of determination of ALP. The point is that in present

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

price in relation to the international transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C. This exercise at one end is to accept or discredit the TPSR of the assessee on the other hand obliges the TPO to make an independent enquiry of his own on the question of determination of ALP. The point is that in present

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

ADDL. CIT,SPL RNAGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. ONGC VIDESH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

46A. The appellant gave evidence that deposits in the fund were made during the year. The matter was referred to the AO for a report. 12.6. In spite of several reminders, no report has been received from the AO. I am therefore basing my order on the documents on record and on merit. 53. Ld. CIT (A) admitted the additional

E.I. DUPONT INDIA P. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

46A of the Income Tax Rules with regard to availing of administrative support services from the AE, vide letter dated 21-03-2013. Those additional evidences were duly admitted by the Learned CITA and were sent to Learned TPO for his comments, vide letter dated 31-03-2013. The assessee tabulated the additional evidences in Annexure 1; the summary

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. E.I. DUPONT INDIA P. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarcorteva Agriscience India Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit, (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Circle-11(1), Ltd), 17Th Floor, Tower-C, Dlf New Delhi Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Dcit, Vs. Corteva Agriscience India Circle-11(1), Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As E.I. Dupont P. Ltd), 17Th New Delhi Floor, Tower-C, Dlf Cyber Greens, Sector-25A, Phase-3, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace2462M Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Shri Pulkit Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024

46A of the Income Tax Rules with regard to availing of administrative support services from the AE, vide letter dated 21-03-2013. Those additional evidences were duly admitted by the Learned CITA and were sent to Learned TPO for his comments, vide letter dated 31-03-2013. The assessee tabulated the additional evidences in Annexure 1; the summary

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SCHLUMBERGER MEASUREMENT & SYSTEMS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the order of the Ld

transfer pricing issue in following manners:- 6.7. “Reasons for the decision: At this stage, .it is necessary to highlight the factual position emerging from the order of the TPO and the submissions made by the appellant. (1) TPO asked for the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) of 8K cards sold by the related party to unrelated entities. (2) Appellant could

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section