DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHALINI GOYAL, DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transferred funds to the assessee's bank account maintained in the same branch (Wazirpur) of Canra Bank. At page 9 of the paper book, the appellant has also filed the confirmation from her husband which contains all the 7 entries mentioned by the, AO. Hence, I do not find any merit in holding these amounts as unexplained., The questionnaire

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHALINI GOYAL, DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transferred funds to the assessee's bank account maintained in the same branch (Wazirpur) of Canra Bank. At page 9 of the paper book, the appellant has also filed the confirmation from her husband which contains all the 7 entries mentioned by the, AO. Hence, I do not find any merit in holding these amounts as unexplained., The questionnaire

SMT. SHALINI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transferred funds to the assessee's bank account maintained in the same branch (Wazirpur) of Canra Bank. At page 9 of the paper book, the appellant has also filed the confirmation from her husband which contains all the 7 entries mentioned by the, AO. Hence, I do not find any merit in holding these amounts as unexplained., The questionnaire

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (I) PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1059/Del/2015 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained investment 6. Ground No. 6 - Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing Matters: That, on the facts and circumstances of the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. M/S GTM BUILDER AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

transferred as such and therefore, the respondent- assessee had devised an MoU with Ajay Jain for taking control over Wings CGHS. 12. Fifthly, it was canvassed before us that the ITAT erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs.34,78,000/- made on account of unexplained investment in the shares of M/s. Sargam Estate

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing issue and the issue of unexplained investment was restored to the file of AO. Accordingly, the TPO vide

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing officer proposed an adjustment of INR 58,43,92,894/–. 17. Against the draft assessment, order the assessee-preferred objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel – IV, New Delhi who passed directions on 26/12/2014. Consequent to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel, final assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with section 153A read with section 144C

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

transfer pricing adjustment) on the ground that such expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit to the Appellant. 7.1 That the Hon’ble DRP erred in confirming the disallowance on account of brand expenses in complete ignorance of the fact that the disallowance had been deleted by the CIT(A) in the orders passed in appellant’s own case

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

transfer pricing adjustment) on the ground that such expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit to the Appellant. 7.1 That the Hon’ble DRP erred in confirming the disallowance on account of brand expenses in complete ignorance of the fact that the disallowance had been deleted by the CIT(A) in the orders passed in appellant’s own case

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the recalled matter of the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

transfer pricing adjustment) on the ground that such expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit to the Appellant. 7.1 That the Hon’ble DRP erred in confirming the disallowance on account of brand expenses in complete ignorance of the fact that the disallowance had been deleted by the CIT(A) in the orders passed in appellant’s own case

ITO, WARD-4(4), GURGAON vs. TRIBHAWAN KUMAR PARNAMI, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

investment addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the AO which represents difference between actual purchase price and that determined by the DVO i.e. Rs. 230,00,000/- and 232,00,000/-; respectively assessed @ 50% in the assessee’s hands. 17. Suffice to say, it could hardly be disputed that be it u/s 50C or 43CA or Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA, DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 7 of the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and assessed the same on protective basis. 2. 1% of the amount added at serial number 1 above has been held as commission income of the appellant on substantive basis. 3. The AO has treated all the credit entries in the remaining 17 bank accounts as unexplained investment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment of EICR in iEnergizer Ltd is held outside India in Cyprus, Bank A/c is held in Cyprus Secretarial and accounting records are maintained at Cyprus. Board meetings of the company are held at Cyprus. However, I clarify that all the decision taken in the Board meetings are only after my approval. Q4.) Based on the above facts, please state

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment of EICR in iEnergizer Ltd is held outside India in Cyprus, Bank A/c is held in Cyprus Secretarial and accounting records are maintained at Cyprus. Board meetings of the company are held at Cyprus. However, I clarify that all the decision taken in the Board meetings are only after my approval. Q4.) Based on the above facts, please state

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment of EICR in iEnergizer Ltd is held outside India in Cyprus, Bank A/c is held in Cyprus Secretarial and accounting records are maintained at Cyprus. Board meetings of the company are held at Cyprus. However, I clarify that all the decision taken in the Board meetings are only after my approval. Q4.) Based on the above facts, please state

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment of EICR in iEnergizer Ltd is held outside India in Cyprus, Bank A/c is held in Cyprus Secretarial and accounting records are maintained at Cyprus. Board meetings of the company are held at Cyprus. However, I clarify that all the decision taken in the Board meetings are only after my approval. Q4.) Based on the above facts, please state

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment of EICR in iEnergizer Ltd is held outside India in Cyprus, Bank A/c is held in Cyprus Secretarial and accounting records are maintained at Cyprus. Board meetings of the company are held at Cyprus. However, I clarify that all the decision taken in the Board meetings are only after my approval. Q4.) Based on the above facts, please state

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, they are dismissed. The cross objection of the assessee also dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment of EICR in iEnergizer Ltd is held outside India in Cyprus, Bank A/c is held in Cyprus Secretarial and accounting records are maintained at Cyprus. Board meetings of the company are held at Cyprus. However, I clarify that all the decision taken in the Board meetings are only after my approval. Q4.) Based on the above facts, please state