AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI / NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing regulations. 9. The Ld. TPO/AO/DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding AMP expense incurred by the assessee as an international transaction under section 928 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without proving existence of any actual understanding/arrangement between the assessee and the associated enterprise to invoke the provisions of section

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

transferred to its other business for the for the purpose of computation of profits and gains of the eligible business in terms of section 80-1 A(8) of the I.T. Act. 63. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Fertilizers in ITA No.2116/2013 order dated 30.01.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 while

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80G respectively. Part 1-Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80G respectively. Part 1-Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80G respectively. Part 1-Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. That on facts of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/ Learned AO have erred in rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant by conducting a fresh economic analysis for the impugned transactions. 4. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO/ Learned

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DABUR INDIA LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

M/S DABUR INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 3257/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dabur India Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Tax, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0474C

section 801B & 801C of the Act, 1961? 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.” 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal which are co-related and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the departmental appeal relate to the chargeability of the royalty

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,30,31,164 by erroneously re- characterizing the outstanding receivables from AE of the Appellant as unsecured loan and computing notional interest on alleged delays in realization of payment from the AEs against the invoices raised for investment advisory services. 4.1. That the learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,30,31,164 by erroneously re- characterizing the outstanding receivables from AE of the Appellant as unsecured loan and computing notional interest on alleged delays in realization of payment from the AEs against the invoices raised for investment advisory services. 4.1. That the learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred

M/S D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,30,31,164 by erroneously re- characterizing the outstanding receivables from AE of the Appellant as unsecured loan and computing notional interest on alleged delays in realization of payment from the AEs against the invoices raised for investment advisory services. 4.1. That the learned AO/ learned TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 55,24,75,64,890 (including substantive adjustment of INR 33,32,45,52,030; and protective adjustment of INR 21,92,30,12,860); in addition to the adjustment on account of corporate tax matters namely (i) disallowance on account of salary paid to expatriates and (ii) disallowance of deduction under section 80G

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

transfer pricing adjustment of INR 55,24,75,64,890 (including substantive adjustment of INR 33,32,45,52,030; and protective adjustment of INR 21,92,30,12,860); in addition to the adjustment on account of corporate tax matters namely (i) disallowance on account of salary paid to expatriates and (ii) disallowance of deduction under section 80G

HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing approach for determining the ALP of this international transaction and further failed to bring any evidence on record that the payment of export commission was in any way excessive as compared to independent transactions of similar nature. 8.9 That the TPO/ DRP erred in rejecting the alternate analysis submitted by the Appellant using CUP as a most appropriate

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PRIVATE LIMITED,MANESAR, GURGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Agilent Technologies Vs. Dcit, (International) Private Limited, Circle 1(1), Plot No.Cp-11, Sector 8, Imt, Gurgaon Manesar, (Haryana) Gurgaon - 122051 Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing pertaining to interest from outstanding receivables being unsustainable in law is set aside. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 2 is allowed. 8. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee regarding ground of appeal no.4, qua rejecting deduction of Rs.36,29,883/- claimed under Section 80G