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

transfer pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price as per the Agreement to Sell is Rs. 40.06 crores only and that the actual consideration which has got exchanged for purchase of the property was infact Rs. 40.06 crores as against Rs. 16 crores for which Sale Deed has been executed. 9. The Assessing Officer further held that one of the buyers Shri R. K. Chawla

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price as per the Agreement to Sell is Rs. 40.06 crores only and that the actual consideration which has got exchanged for purchase of the property was infact Rs. 40.06 crores as against Rs. 16 crores for which Sale Deed has been executed. 9. The Assessing Officer further held that one of the buyers Shri R. K. Chawla

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer prices. In second round, Ld. AO has merely said that there is no need to vitiate his earlier order since it has not been set aside. In fact, TPO in order dated 27.01.2021 page nos. 73 and 74 of paper books Volume I held that the issues are appearing in order of Ld. DRP regarding TP Report mentions TNMM

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer prices. In second round, Ld. AO has merely said that there is no need to vitiate his earlier order since it has not been set aside. In fact, TPO in order dated 27.01.2021 page nos. 73 and 74 of paper books Volume I held that the issues are appearing in order of Ld. DRP regarding TP Report mentions TNMM

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

transfer prices of its international related party transactions; 5.9 not appreciating that in the instant case the collective addition made by Ld. TPO (Rs. 85.75 crores) and profits already booked by the Appellant (Rs. 66.49 crores) and another group entity viz. Inductis (India) Private Limited (Rs. 19.80 crores) are in effect more than profits earned by entire Exl Group

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

transfer prices of its international related party transactions; 5.9 not appreciating that in the instant case the collective addition made by Ld. TPO (Rs. 85.75 crores) and profits already booked by the Appellant (Rs. 66.49 crores) and another group entity viz. Inductis (India) Private Limited (Rs. 19.80 crores) are in effect more than profits earned by entire Exl Group

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

69C are not applicable on the facts of the case. 4. That the Ld. PCIT grossly erred in law & on the facts & circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order on the basis of incorrect reasons. 5. That the Ld. PCIT grossly erred in law & on the facts & circumstances of the case in passing the impugned order merely

KNAUF INDIA PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOW AS USG BORAL BUILDING PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD),HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD 14 (3) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation, modifying the same with his own analysis and in doing so: 7.1. erred in not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. 7.2. contravened section 92C of the Act read with Rule IOB(2) of the Rules, by rejecting/ excluding the comparable

KNAUF INDIA PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOW AS USG BORAL BUILDING PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD),GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation, modifying the same with his own analysis and in doing so: 7.1. erred in not appreciating that none of the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in the present case. 7.2. contravened section 92C of the Act read with Rule IOB(2) of the Rules, by rejecting/ excluding the comparable

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transferred in overseas jurisdiction. We thus find force in the plea of the assessee that in the instant case where the overseas agents I.T.A. No.2109/Del/2022 11 were paid commission for securing order etc., and such services were utilised for the purpose of making or earning income from a source outside India, the assessee is under no obligation to apply with

RAJESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment year under appeal. Purchase and sale of shares have not been doubted. These were supported by documentary evidences and all the transactions are carried

PUSHPA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment year under appeal. Purchase and sale of shares have not been doubted. These were supported by documentary evidences and all the transactions are carried

ANUPAMA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment year under appeal. Purchase and sale of shares have not been doubted. These were supported by documentary evidences and all the transactions are carried

BHUSHAN GARG (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment year under appeal. Purchase and sale of shares have not been doubted. These were supported by documentary evidences and all the transactions are carried

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds the shares for one year, the statuary period after which LTCG is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price of the stock and gradually raise

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that assessee has incurred liability of interest expenditure proceeded to invoke Section 69C to make addition. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the entire addition for NH-8 deal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that assessee has incurred liability of interest expenditure proceeded to invoke Section 69C to make addition. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the entire addition for NH-8 deal