ASUS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE LD. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ACIT/ ITO, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Asus India Private Limited The Learned. 402, Supreme Chambers, Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Ito 17-18 Shah Industrial Estate, Room No.305, Ara Centre 2-E Veera Desai Road, Vs. Jhandewalan Extn, New Delhi, Andheri (West), Delhi-110055 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajca6450C Assessee By : Mr. Vijay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2023

194H or under section 194C of the act. With respect to the transfer pricing adjustment, assessee furnished additional evidences before

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

price at which these are\ntransferred to the pre-paid distributors. No payment or credit\nwas made by the Assessee to its pre-paid distributors. In fact, it\nwas the pre-paid distributors who make a payment to the\nAssessee for transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and\naccordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the\ndistributors

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

price at which these are\ntransferred to the pre-paid distributors. No payment or credit\nwas made by the Assessee to its pre-paid distributors. In fact, it\nwas the pre-paid distributors who make a payment to the\nAssessee for transferring pre-paid talk time and connections and\naccordingly the discount extended was not income earned by the\ndistributors

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LTD. WHICH STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS IDEA LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE- 5 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

price at which these were transferred to the Pre-paid Distributors. The Assessing Officer and the DRP were of the view that the upfront discount given by the Appellant to the Pre-paid Distributor was in the nature of ‘commission’ liable to withholding of tax at source under section 194H

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

transfer pricing\nadjustment of Rs. 2,84,68,27,994/- made in respect of AMP expenditure is devoid\nof merit and should be deleted. Therefore, the adjustment is set aside, and the\nassessee's appeal is allowed.\n12. During the hearing before the ITAT, only grounds 9 and 10 were argued, and\nno other grounds were pursued

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

194H of\nthe Act on the discount extended by the Appellant to distributors of prepaid SIM\ncards/talktime.\n5. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in not holding that no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act since the Appellant is of a bonafide

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

price at which these were transferred to the Pre-paid Distributors. 5.2. In the Draft Assessment Order, dated 29/12/2016, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of the upfront discount extended to the Pre-paid Distributors. The Assessing Officer treated the arrangement between the Appellant and Pre-paid Distributors as a ‘Principal

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

section 194H of the Act and hence there cannot be any obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source thereon and consequentially there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. II raised by the assessee is allowed. The Ground No. I raised by the assessee is only supporting

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

section 194H would count as income for the agents themselves. It is at this point that settlement is made fully and finally, in line with clause 7.2 of the PSA. 48. The only remaining objection from the Assessees concerns Section 216 of the Contract Act. To appropriately appreciate the scope of the provision, a combined reading of both Sections

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

194H", "Section 5(1)", "Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007", "Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd." ], "issues": "The main issues involved disallowances under Section 14A, transfer pricing

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) passed an order under\nsection 92CA(3) of the Act dated 19.01.2022 proposing an\nadjustment of ₹4,63,86,606/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer\nissued a draft assessment order incorporating, inter-alia, the\ntransfer pricing adjustment and certain other corporate additions\nand disallowances.\n2.2 Since the assessee did not opt for adjudication by the Dispute\nResolution

ASIAN PAINTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

194H", "37(1)"], "issues": "The core issues involve the interpretation and application of various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning disallowances, deductions, transfer pricing

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

transfers goods to the LFS's at MRP minus certain pre-agreed percentage, whereas the sale from the LFS's takes place at MRP. The Margin is the benefit to the LFS. Here also assessee- company decides the price on which goods to be sold to the end-customers and there is no right of LFS to modify sale price

DCIT(TDS)-1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

transfers goods to the LFS's at MRP minus certain pre-agreed percentage, whereas the sale from the LFS's takes place at MRP. The Margin is the benefit to the LFS. Here also assessee- company decides the price on which goods to be sold to the end-customers and there is no right of LFS to modify sale price

DCIT(TDS)OSD-1(2), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL vs. HOUSE OF ANITA DONGRE PVT LTD, BANDRA WEST

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

transfers goods to the LFS's at MRP minus certain pre-agreed percentage, whereas the sale from the LFS's takes place at MRP. The Margin is the benefit to the LFS. Here also assessee- company decides the price on which goods to be sold to the end-customers and there is no right of LFS to modify sale price

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment on account of the letter of comfort.\nIn view of our findings rendered in assessee's appeal on a similar issue,\nground no.1 raised in Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n38. The issue arising in grounds no.2, 10, 11, and 12, raised in Revenue's\nappeal, pertains to allowability of expenditure under section

M/S CEAT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1

M/S CEAT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER OSD TDS CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI

section 201(1) of the Act and raised\nthe demand of Rs.1,25,00,396/- .\n8. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said demand\nbefore the Ld. Commissioner and raised various issues/grounds.\n9. The Ld. Commissioner considering the peculiar facts and\ncircumstances in totality, ultimately confirmed the decision of the\nAO in raising the demand of Rs.1