“dispute resolution panel”

Bain & Company Inc., Haryana vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Presidenet & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bain & Company, Inc. Vs. Deputy/Acit, International Tax, 131, Dartmouth Street, Gurgaon, Dartmouth Street Boston, Haryana Massachusetts, Usa, Foreign United States, C/O Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., 20Th Floor, Building No.10, Tower C, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, India, 122 002 Pan :Aaecb9564H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to Assessment Yr: 2018-19 assessment year 1989-90, in pursuance to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Ground no.1 being a general ground, does not require adjudication. 3. In ground no. 2, assessee has challenged the taxability of an amount

Servicenow Nederland Bv, Netherland vs. ACIT, Circle- Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

hereinafter called ‘the Act’) Page 1 of 16 Service Now Nederland BV vs. ACIT subsequent to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide direction dated 16/06/2022 for Asst. Year 2011-12. 2. The first issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed as above

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

read as under :- “1. That on facts and in law the orders passed by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred as the "AO"] 1 Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred as the "DRP"] / Transfer Pricing Officer [hereinafter referred as the "TPO"] are bad in law and void ab-initio. 2 ITA No.468/Del

Automation Anywhere Inc, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20. Automation Anywhere Inc., Vs. Dcit, 301-302, 10 Biz Park, Circle-1(1)(1), Near Airport, Pune, International Taxation, Maharashtra New Delhi Pan :Aamca9481A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA Nos.2147 & 2148 /Del/2022 AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, the common issue arising in both the appeal

Automation Anywhere Inc, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2018-19 With Assessment Year: 2019-20. Automation Anywhere Inc., Vs. Dcit, 301-302, 10 Biz Park, Circle-1(1)(1), Near Airport, Pune, International Taxation, Maharashtra New Delhi Pan :Aamca9481A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA Nos.2147 & 2148 /Del/2022 AYs: 2018-19 & 2019-20 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, the common issue arising in both the appeal

Cricket Australia, Australia vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(2)(1), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Cricket Australia, Vs Acit (International No.60, Jolimant Street, Jolimont Taxation), Victoria, Australia-3002. Circle-1(2)(1), Pan-Aaecc5341D Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. & Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vizay B.Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. AO), pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as Ld. DRP), erred in considering that the license fees amounting to Rs. 5,12,77,558 earned by the appellant from Sony ... respect of license fee of INR 5,12,77,558/-. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) who vide its direction dated 10.02.2022 issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act, disposed off the objection of the assessee. Thereby, Ld.DRP sustained

Mannu Bhatia, Uae vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Mannu Bhatia Vs. Acit, 1704, Mesk Tower, International Tax Al Marsa Road, Dubai Circle 1(1)(2) Marina, Dubai, Uae Pan : Afnpb4279A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Circle Int. Tax, 1(1)(2), u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that information regarding financial transactions / activities relating to assessee during the relevant assessment ... Assessing Officer. The relevant provisions of section 144C, which are relevant for our purpose, are reproduced herein below:— "144C Reference to dispute resolution panel.— (1) to (4)** ** ** (5) The Dispute Resolution Panel shall, in a case where any objection is received under sub- section (2), issue such directions

Shalini Gupta, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmashalini Gupta Vs. Acit, Habsburger Str 7, Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) Duesseldorf 4057, New Delhi Germany 999999 Pan : Bnrpg7735F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Delhi u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian settled in Germany since her marriage in 1994. Assessee claims ... after making an addition of Rs.74,12,618/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, in pursuance to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (Hon'ble DRP), New Delhi, denying the principles of natural justice, which is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal, invalid and void-ab- initio. 2. The notice

Amit Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the lower authorities and is forming part of the records. It is not in dispute that the services were rendered by the assessee only in Netherlands during the year under consideration. However, the assessee was also sent on deputation to India on behalf of Akzo Netherlands. For administrative convenience, the Amit Jain vs. ACIT Page 3 of 9

passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide direction dated 10/05/2022 for Asst. Year 2018-19. Page 1 of 9 Amit Jain vs. ACIT 2. Though the assessee has raised ... made to Page 3 of 9 Amit Jain vs. ACIT the income of the assessee. The assessee filed his objections before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 4. The ld. DRP vide its directions dated 10.05.2022 appreciated that the ld. AO has not considered the documents and submissions

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

That the Final Assessment Order passed by the AO is not in conformity with the Directions dated 27.04.2022 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and is therefore liable to be quashed being in gross violation of the strict mandate of section 144C(13) of the ITA. 3. That

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)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Assessing Officer passed pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That on the facts ... application of the principles of commercial expediency and need test applied by the learned transfer pricing officer and confirmed by the learned dispute resolution panel. The ground number 6 along with its sub- grounds (14 in number) is in substance challenging the determination of the arm's-length price