MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2) (xv) of the Act if it satisfies otherwise the tests laid down by the law." 85. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, para 7.13 emphasises that there should not be any automatic inference about an AE receiving an entity group service only because it gets an incidental benefit for being part of a larger concern and not to any specific

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

section 56(2)(viib). It is evidenced, during the appellate proceedings, by the\nfact that M/s. Otter Ltd has immediately sold certain no of shares to an India\nbased Indian resident entity. M/s. Link Investment Trust. It is clearly evident\nthat if M/s. Link Investment Trust had bought the shares of the appellant-\ncompany at such a huge premium

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

90,496 Price charged by the Assessee 2,16,32,36,787 Difference / adjustment 19,08,53,709 3 BPO/ ITeS Segment 4. The assessee provides ITeS services to its AEs which includes – (i) accounts reconciliation, pension plans, health benefits etc.; and (ii) HR services including payroll, maintenance of employee databases etc. For rendering these services, the assessee is remunerated

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)

transfer pricing adjustment is not sustainable under law. 76. Learned departmental representative vehemently supported order of learned transfer pricing officer and learned CIT - A. 77. We have carefully considered rival contention and perused orders of lower authorities. Facts in facts show in present case is that assessee has given a loan to its wholly owned subsidiary in Switzerland namely

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

pricing, data analytics, management or any other technical matter under this Act or an agreement entered into under section 90 or 90A, which may be required in a particular case or a class of cases, under this section and the term "technical unit", wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned

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)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA

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)

2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed order under section 92CA

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 analysis of Adobe India has been undertaken and the ALP has been determined which has been accepted by the Ld. AO, nothing further would be left to be attributed to Adobe India as the alleged PE of the assessee in India and that accordingly would extinguish the need for attribution of any additional profits to the alleged

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

2) and 142(1) of the Act,\nShri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared\nand filed details.\n4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its\nassociated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer under section 92CA(1) of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer passed\norder under section 92CA

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

2% based on the fresh search undertaken by the Ld. TPO during the course of proceedings by adopting the methodology similar to that adopted by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation. Page 4 of 46 ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

2% based on the fresh search undertaken by the Ld. TPO during the course of proceedings by adopting the methodology similar to that adopted by the Appellant in the transfer pricing documentation. Page 4 of 46 ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(14). This argument overlooks the fact that the right to specific performance had been specifically given up by the assessee, J. Dalmia, and what was left was a mere right to sue for damages. In the case of Tata Services Ltd. (supra), there was an agreement to purchase a residential plot and the purchaser had paid Rs. 90

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) following the order of the learned TPO and AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in determining the total income of the Appellant at INR 77,07,6401- as against the returned loss of INR 65,96,611/- and thereby made an upward adjustment

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) following the order of the learned TPO and AO has erred in law and on the facts of the case in determining the total income of the Appellant at INR 77,07,6401- as against the returned loss of INR 65,96,611/- and thereby made an upward adjustment

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

2. rights to use intangible property, and 3. pricing a range of closely-linked products (e.g. in a product line) when it is impractical to determine pricing for each individual.‖ 86. Similar guidance is given by the US and Australian TP Regulations on this issue and the same read as under: “The combined effect of two or more separate transactions

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

2. rights to use intangible property, and 3. pricing a range of closely-linked products (e.g. in a product line) when it is impractical to determine pricing for each individual.‖ 86. Similar guidance is given by the US and Australian TP Regulations on this issue and the same read as under: “The combined effect of two or more separate transactions

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

2. rights to use intangible property, and 3. pricing a range of closely-linked products (e.g. in a product line) when it is impractical to determine pricing for each individual.‖ 86. Similar guidance is given by the US and Australian TP Regulations on this issue and the same read as under: “The combined effect of two or more separate transactions

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

2. rights to use intangible property, and 3. pricing a range of closely-linked products (e.g. in a product line) when it is impractical to determine pricing for each individual.‖ 86. Similar guidance is given by the US and Australian TP Regulations on this issue and the same read as under: “The combined effect of two or more separate transactions