DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. 10. It was brought to our notice that the assessee is an ‘eligible assessee’ for the purpose of Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. EICR (CYPRUS) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). CO Nos. 473 & 474/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. EICR (Cyprus) Ltd. 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEWBURY HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). CO Nos. 349 & 350/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. Newbury Holding Ltd. 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEWBURY HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). CO Nos. 349 & 350/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. Newbury Holding Ltd. 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GAINWAY HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Gainway Holdings Ltd. Vs Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aafcg6056L Appellant Respondent

TDS). 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued as required under Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. FOCUSOIL INC., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit Vs Focusoil Inc. Central Circle-19, Room C/O. Sandeep Chilana, Advocate No. 362, Ara Centre, E-2, Chilana & Chilana Law Offices, Jhandewalan Extension, Advoate For The Respondent C- New Delhi 56, Lfg, Jangpura Extention, New Delhi-110014 Pan: Aaccf3908K Appellant Respondent

TDS). 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued as required under Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GYNIA HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued as required under Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GYNIA HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued as required under Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GYNIA HOLDING LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued as required under Section 144C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. BENNETT WILLIAMSON ENGINEERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

TDS). 3.3 Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act, the assessments were completed. It is the Assessee’s case that it is an “eligible assessee” and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was not followed. In as much as, the draft assessment order was not issued as required under Section 144C

BECHTEL LIMITED,LONDON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Act.” 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee first made submissions on additional ground of appeal wherein Ld. AR submits that the Ld. DRP in para 4 of the order has made following observations: “4. DRP’s directions: The DRP has carefully considered the assessee’s submissions filed on 25.10.2021 being volume

BECHTEL LTD,LONDON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(13) of the Act.” 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee first made submissions on additional ground of appeal wherein Ld. AR submits that the Ld. DRP in para 4 of the order has made following observations: “4. DRP’s directions: The DRP has carefully considered the assessee’s submissions filed on 25.10.2021 being volume

HAKAM FLUID POWER PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

144C(13) of the Act.” 9. Before us, Ld. AR of the assessee first made submissions on additional ground of appeal wherein Ld. AR submits that the Ld. DRP in para 4 of the order has made following observations: “4. DRP’s directions: The DRP has carefully considered the assessee’s submissions filed on 25.10.2021 being volume

TRAVELPORT LP,GEORGIA USA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144C(13) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grievances of the assessee read as under: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the order dated June 21, 2019 framed under Section 1440(13) read with Sections

SUPER BRANDS LTD (UK),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

144C (12) of the Income Tax Act, (c) Irrespective of whether the DRP concludes the proceedings and issues directions or not, within 9 months, the Assessing officer is to pass orders within the stipulated time, (d) In matter involving transfer pricing, upon remand to DRP, the Assessing officer is to pass a denova draft order and the entire proceedings