(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

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

The appeal is allowed

section 92C on the basis of such material or informaction or document available with him. After the Transfer Pricing Officer determines the arm’s length price, it is incumbent upon him to send a copy of the order to the assessing officer and to the assessee. In the present case what has happened is that the Transfer Pricing Officer

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 21 of 45 Pricing Officer Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 21 of 45 Pricing Officer Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances

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)

transferred to marketing division of assessee- company and sale price was noted by Baddi Unit as per final sale price of product. But fact is that marketing divisions and C&F are involved, therefore sales are realized by main marketing division. He has thus pleaded that profit derived from "marketing function" cannot be dragged to manufacturing unit for purpose

M/S TAKATA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Takata India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 25(1), (Now Joyson Anand Abhishek New Delhi Safety Systems Pvt Ltd.,) Plot No.20, Sector-5, Imt Manesar, Gurugram (Haryana)-122050 Pan/Gir No. Aacct 7200 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

5. That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in facts and law by not allowing . ITA No.6835/Del2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 6 of 9 adjustment for less capacity utilization, as claimed by the appellant.. 6.That the ld Ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer (Transfer Pricing Officer) ld.DRP have erred in adopting a different basis

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.

Section 10A of the Act and transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent-assessee filed

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.

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 that reference was received from AO- Technical Unit. It is respectfully submitted that under section

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

section 92CA of the Act, the learned AO referred the matter to learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. As per the Transfer Pricing documentation, the assessee earned an operating margin of 15.65%. The comparables have earned a working capital adjusted margin of 4.15% (35th percentile) to 10.29% (65th percentile

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

section 92CA of the Act, the learned AO referred the matter to learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. As per the Transfer Pricing documentation, the assessee earned an operating margin of 15.65%. The comparables have earned a working capital adjusted margin of 4.15% (35th percentile) to 10.29% (65th percentile

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 (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

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 (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

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 (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

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 (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT 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 (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS 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 (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made – (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the “Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA(3) on 22-02-2006 wherein he determined an adjustment of Rs.2,23,96,778/- to be made to the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,23,96,778/- is reduced from the loss shown by the assessee. 5

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA(3) on 22-02-2006 wherein he determined an adjustment of Rs.2,23,96,778/- to be made to the value of international transactions entered into by the assessee. Hence, a sum of Rs.2,23,96,778/- is reduced from the loss shown by the assessee. 5