COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMADEUS INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) could not take cognizance suo moto of any international transaction for adjustment in the Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961?” 2011:DHC:6027-DB ITA 938/11 Page 2 of 20 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee, which was incorporated on 26.07.1999 as a joint venture

(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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

2 having their headquarters mentioned in column 3 shall exercise such powers and perform such function of Transfer Pricing Officers as mentioned in Section 92CA for the purpose of sections 92C and 92D of the Act, in respect of persons or classes of persons mentioned in column 5

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

price of share as on 31.03.2006] [Screenshot of BSE India website is attached @ page 341 of paperbook - II] 3. FMV of 98,81,296 shares of BIL as on 1.04.2006 [1*2] Rs.136,36,18,848 3. For completeness it may be highlighted that subsequently on 28.02.2008, the shares of BIL were split in the ratio of 1:5, thereby

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the Assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under 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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the Assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under 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

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)

section 80 IA (8) of The Act. However, as assessee himself has stated that profit can be imputed at rate of 1 or 2% of value of transaction price recorded in books of accounts, we direct learned assessing officer in case of processed goods such as Kattha and cardamom to compute 2% on process charges as profit for computation

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

5) of the Act. He has further submitted that the Section 10 (37) of the Act, provides that in the case of an assessee being individual or a HUF, capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land, being capital asset by way of compulsory acquisition under any law, or a transfer the consideration for which is determined or approved

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

5) of section 144C, complete the assessment within the time allowed in sub-section (13) of section 144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send a copy of the assessment order to the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxx) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, upon receipt of the assessment order referred to in clause (xxvi) or clause (xxix

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

5, the following observation was given which is reproduced as under\n\"The above section clearly indicates that the provision is applicable to\na transaction of issuance of shares to resident shareholders. However, the\nshares were issued to M/s Otter Ltd, M/s Credit Suise (Singapore) Limited and\nM/s Link Investment Trust. Out of these three shareholders, M/s Otter

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92-CA; and (ii) any foreign company.’ 9. A reference is also made to the provisions of section 144B relating to the faceless assessment pertaining to the assessment completed in case of eligible assessee u/s 144C of the Act, which are as under: Ariba India Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT “144B.Faceless Assessment

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

5) of section 45 was inserted to provide for taxation of additional compensation in the year of receipt instead of in the year of transfer of the capital asset. The court considered the provisions of sections 23(1), 23(1-A) and section 23(2) of the Act as well as section 28 and section

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)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA

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)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer passed\nunder sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and\n(ii) any foreign company.]\"\n15. A plain reading of Section indicates that it is obligatory on\nthe part of the AO to forward a draft Assessment Order as per\nthe provisions of Section 144C(1) of the Act. The sub-Section\n(1) of Section 144C being

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

2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce, including any information or documents referred to in sub-section (3) of section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered