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) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a TP adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the ALP so determined. The second proviso to Section 92C (2) provides a 'gateway' by stipulating that if the variation between the ALP and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage, no TP adjustment

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) thus is explicit that the only manner of effecting a TP adjustment is to substitute the transaction price with the ALP so determined. The second proviso to Section 92C (2) provides a 'gateway' by stipulating that if the variation between the ALP and the transaction price does not exceed the specified percentage, no TP adjustment

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

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

73,776/- without considering the Transfer Pricing Study of the assessee company and by wrongly computing the Arm's Length Price by adopting incorrect comparable as against the genuine comparable adopted by the assessee company in its Transfer Pricing Study and hence, the said erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n12. That on the facts, law and in the 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)

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 of market price of goods transferred inter-unit. Accordingly, learned assessing officer is directed to consider transaction value of goods, which

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.

73,89,174 Total 68,39,40,825 5. Aggrieved assessee filed objections before the DRP and raised various objections. With regard to objections relating to adjustment in respect of transfer of specified assets, ld. DRP observed as under :- “3.2.2 The Panel has considered the submission, which is only a reiteration of the submission before the TPO and which

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

73,443/-. The income derived by the Assessee from the eligible undertaking was excluded in computation of the declared income. 5. The AO passed an assessment order dated 31st March, 1994 for the AY 1991-92 determining the total income of the Assessee as `2,11,15,617/-. Whilst the AO rejected certain expenses as deductible, there was no discussion

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

73,443/-. The income derived by the Assessee from the eligible undertaking was excluded in computation of the declared income. 5. The AO passed an assessment order dated 31st March, 1994 for the AY 1991-92 determining the total income of the Assessee as `2,11,15,617/-. Whilst the AO rejected certain expenses as deductible, there was no discussion

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

73,443/-. The income derived by the Assessee from the eligible undertaking was excluded in computation of the declared income. 5. The AO passed an assessment order dated 31st March, 1994 for the AY 1991-92 determining the total income of the Assessee as `2,11,15,617/-. Whilst the AO rejected certain expenses as deductible, there was no discussion

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

73,443/-. The income derived by the Assessee from the eligible undertaking was excluded in computation of the declared income. 5. The AO passed an assessment order dated 31st March, 1994 for the AY 1991-92 determining the total income of the Assessee as `2,11,15,617/-. Whilst the AO rejected certain expenses as deductible, there was no discussion

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)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

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)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section