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

Transfer Pricing Officer- 3(2)(1) ("Ld. TPO") have erred in proposing an addition of INR 928,242,653 holding that the Appellant's international transactions do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. 5. That the Ld. DRP/Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO have erred in undertaking adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion ("AMP") expenses

SWATCH GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), C.R. BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")/ Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR. 22,35,89,000/-in respect of the advertising and marketing ("AMP") expenditure incurred by the Appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AMP adjustment made by the Ld. AO/Ld

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

transfer pricing adjustments proposed by Id. TPO and upheld by the Id. DRP, c) ₹5,44,84,880/-on account of corporate tax issue upheld by the Id. DRP. d) In considering incorrect amount of capital gains at 77,71,953/- against the capital loss reported by assessee in its ITR at 4,09,10,680/- 2. That the final

AYATNA REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if ITA No.1293 to1295/Del/2022 there is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not such arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate in a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and the transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the instant case

AYATNA REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if ITA No.1293 to1295/Del/2022 there is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not such arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate in a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and the transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the instant case

GREENLAND FINANCE AND LEASING P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if ITA No.1293 to1295/Del/2022 there is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not such arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate in a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and the transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the instant case

GREENLAND FINANCE AND LEASING P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if ITA No.1293 to1295/Del/2022 there is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not such arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate in a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and the transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the instant case

WRIGLEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-27(2), DELHI

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

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if\nthere is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not\nsuch arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate\nin a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and\nthe transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the\ninstant case, there

DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if\n13\nITA Nos.667 & 702, 952 & 953/Del/2022\nITA No. 1293 to 1295/Del/2022\nthere is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not\nsuch arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate\nin a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and\nthe transaction would qualify

JCIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if\nthere is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not\nsuch arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate\nin a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and\nthe transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the\ninstant case, there

DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI vs. WRIGLEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if\nthere is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not\nsuch arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate\nin a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and\nthe transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the\ninstant case, there

WRIGLEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-27(2), DELHI

Section 92F(5) of the Act, if\n\nthere is an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, whether or not\nsuch arrangement, is in action formal or in writing which shows to substantiate\nin a transaction between two AEs, transfer pricing provisions would apply, and\nthe transaction would qualify as an international transaction. Further, in the\ninstant case, there

LOUIS VUITTON INDIA RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") erred on facts and in law in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 4,34,45,060/-pertaining to international transaction of sale of goods - felt packing material that do not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act and in doing so, have grossly erred in. 3.1. erroneously rejecting

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

BELDEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 424/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Belden India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Unit No. 233-236, 2Nd Floor, Spaze Circle-1(1), Edge, Tower-B, Sohna Road, Sector- Gurgaon 47, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb9624Q Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

928 on account of corporate tax disallowances made u/s 143(1) of the Act and transfer pricing adjustments made by the Ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in computing higher assessed income on account of double disallowance

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing issue, since the current assessment year under consideration is covered by the MAP provisions. 20. Ground no.6 is against the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such

M/S. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing issue, since the current assessment year under consideration is covered by the MAP provisions. 20. Ground no.6 is against the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing issue, since the current assessment year under consideration is covered by the MAP provisions. 20. Ground no.6 is against the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such

GRUNER INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4062/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Gruner India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 15 Dsidc, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-10(2), Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcg2938H Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated Xx.02.2019 Passed By The Ao U/S 254/143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

transfer pricing. The TPO also observed that royalty and technical services fees together amounted to 11.10% of the total operating expenses of the assessee, and therefore these action should be separately benchmarked. 1.2.2 The TPO further observed that payment of royalty is not required to be paid to the AE because it is not bringing any income to the assessee