VAIDYA MANGAT RAI FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmavaidya Mangat Rai The Commissioner Of Foundation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Friends Colony Chandigarh Gali No.2, Hansi Road Bhiwani. Pan-Aadtv 6078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Sapna Bhattia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024

Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation. 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not applied for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply for registration now. This

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

80G (Rs.22,30,000) Net loss adjusted by A.O with current year (Rs.4,67,99,123) profits On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in adjusting the losses of earlier assessment years pertaining to Baddi Unit and Haridwar Unit while computing deduction under section 80-IC of the Act in the year under consideration

GENPACT SERVICES LLC,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\N\Nita No. 4477/Del/2024\N[Assessment Year: 2020-21]\N\N| Genpact Services Llc,\Nplot 22A & B, Sector 18,\Nudyog Vihar,\Ngurgaon, Haryana-122002\Npan-Aaccg3353P\Nappellant\N|\Nassistant Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-International Tax-1(3)(1),\Nvs Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\N| Appellant By\Nshri Vishal Kalra, Adv.,\Nms. Reema Malik, Adv.& Ms.\Nsnigdha Gautam, Adv.\Nrespondent By\Nshri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N30.07.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N31.07.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The\Nassessing Officer Dated 29.07.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act') In Pursuance To The\Ndirections Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 25.06.2024 Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2020-21.\N2. The Relevant Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Indian Branch Office Of\Ngenpact Llc, A Usa Company. The Assessee Is A Service Provider\Nrendering Off-Shore Support Services Akin To Bpo Services, Including\Ncollections/Analytics Call Centre Services & Other Back-Office Support\Nservices To Its Aes. The Assessee Is Responsible For Rendering The\Ndesignated Bpo / Collections Services From Its Facility / Infrastructure In\Nindia. As For Assessment Year 2020-21, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of\Nincome (Roi') Declaring An Income Of Inr 20,57,10,540/- On 07.01.2021.\Nduring The Course Of Scrutiny, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference U/S\N92Ca Of The Act To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo') To Determine The\Narm'S Length Price (‘Alp') In Respect Of International Transaction Entered\Ninto By The Assessee.\N2.

section (3) of Sec. 92CA, the A.Ο\nshall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee under sub-\nsection (4) of Sec. 92C in conformity with the arm's length price so\ndetermined by the TPO. As is discernible from the order of the DRP, it\nwas the claim of the assessee that now when the Asst.\nCommissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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