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

8. This Instruction issues under Section 119 of the Act and supercedes Instruction No.3 of 2003 with immediate effect.” (Sobhan Kar) Director (APA), Government of India 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI M/s. S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. that in view of the transfer pricing

(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

Transfer Pricing Officer. The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 92C makes it clear that where more than one price is determined by employing the most appropriate method, the arm’s length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices. There is no dispute that the prices which are to be considered while computing

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

transfer price of goods and as such assessing officer is not justified in enhancing value without making reference to any comparable cases. IX. Further, assessing officer has not brought anything on record to establish market value of goods for purpose of provision of section 80IA(8

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

transfer pricing provisions. The meaning assigned to ‘international transaction’ in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 92B was inclusive and not limited to the types of transactions in sub-clauses A to C and E of Clause (i). The bright line test was a way of finding out the cost and value of the international transaction, which was the first

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer) /Ld.DRP have erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the present case in not proving the benefit of deduction of +5% as per proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act.” 8

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.

price of international transactions. Thus, the consequent proceedings are not barred by limitations and he prayed accordingly. 8. After careful consideration of the facts and arguments of both the parties, to decide this issue, we first examine the provisions of section 92CA(1) of the Act which are as under: 92CA. Reference to Transfer

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

8 (st)] wherein while applying section 80-IA\nof the IT Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that the value of\nsteam used for captive consumption by the assessee was entitled to be\ndeducted under section 80-IA of the Act.\n46. Therefore it is apparent that\ni. steam is a valuable sources of power

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

8 (st)] wherein while applying section 80-IA\nof the IT Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that the value of\nsteam used for captive consumption by the assessee was entitled to be\ndeducted under section 80-IA of the Act.\n46. Therefore it is apparent that\ni. steam is a valuable sources of power

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

8 (st)] wherein while applying section 80-IA\nof the IT Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that the value of\nsteam used for captive consumption by the assessee was entitled to be\ndeducted under section 80-IA of the Act.\n\n46. Therefore it is apparent that\ni. steam is a valuable sources of power

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

8 (st)] wherein while applying section 80-IA\nof the IT Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that the value of\nsteam used for captive consumption by the assessee was entitled to be\ndeducted under section 80-IA of the Act.\n\n46. Therefore it is apparent that\ni. steam is a valuable sources of power

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) by the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the transaction entered by the assessee with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (“Adobe India”) has always been accepted at Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) by the preceding TPO(s). 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

8,80,965/- c. price protection Rs. 39,23,45,128/- d. shop, sales, execution, remuneration Rs. 125,53,76,689/- e. trade discount on invoices Rs. 1658,73,81,046/- Total Rs. 1200,72,66,766/- 5.5 The ld TPO sought to treat the AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

8,80,965/- c. price protection Rs. 39,23,45,128/- d. shop, sales, execution, remuneration Rs. 125,53,76,689/- e. trade discount on invoices Rs. 1658,73,81,046/- Total Rs. 1200,72,66,766/- 5.5 The ld TPO sought to treat the AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

8,80,965/- c. price protection Rs. 39,23,45,128/- d. shop, sales, execution, remuneration Rs. 125,53,76,689/- e. trade discount on invoices Rs. 1658,73,81,046/- Total Rs. 1200,72,66,766/- 5.5 The ld TPO sought to treat the AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section

DCIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

8,80,965/- c. price protection Rs. 39,23,45,128/- d. shop, sales, execution, remuneration Rs. 125,53,76,689/- e. trade discount on invoices Rs. 1658,73,81,046/- Total Rs. 1200,72,66,766/- 5.5 The ld TPO sought to treat the AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

8,80,965/- c. price protection Rs. 39,23,45,128/- d. shop, sales, execution, remuneration Rs. 125,53,76,689/- e. trade discount on invoices Rs. 1658,73,81,046/- Total Rs. 1200,72,66,766/- 5.5 The ld TPO sought to treat the AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section