DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

GSR INDUSTRIES,NOIDA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

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

section 144C (1). 3. Because the impugned assessment order dated 21.06.2023 is perverse as the Ld. AO as well as the 3 GSR Industries Ld. DRP, both didn't appreciate the evidence of the transaction of credit note issued by the assessee and corresponding adjustment made by the AE The allegation that the credit note was afterthought is baseless

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KOHINOOR FOODS LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

section 92CA of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s. 92CA(3) dated 28.01.2025 had directed the AO to enhance the income of the assessee by Rs. 15,79,78,123/-. Accordingly, the AO enhanced the income by Rs. 15,79,78,123/- in the Draft Assessment Order sent to the assessee. Later the assessee filed the objections

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

section 92CA of the Act. The Transfer Pricing Officer vide order u/s. 92CA(3) dated 28.01.2025 had directed the AO to enhance the income of the assessee by Rs. 15,79,78,123/-. Accordingly, the AO enhanced the income by Rs. 15,79,78,123/- in the Draft Assessment Order sent to the assessee. Later the assessee filed the objections

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

144C(S) of the Act without\njudiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to\nthe draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law.\n1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing\nofficer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered\nin favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM VIIAY IRON WORKS (RS. 1,16,52,984/-), ARMSTRONG WIRES & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. (RS. 2,58,55,023) AND KIRTI ENTERPRISES (RS. 63,42,250). We were not given relevant survey documents pertaining to those additions despite numerous requests at the time of remand proceedings. Since M/s DDEPL did not have access to the books

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM VIIAY IRON WORKS (RS. 1,16,52,984/-), ARMSTRONG WIRES & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. (RS. 2,58,55,023) AND KIRTI ENTERPRISES (RS. 63,42,250). We were not given relevant survey documents pertaining to those additions despite numerous requests at the time of remand proceedings. Since M/s DDEPL did not have access to the books

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

144C(1) of the Act observed that the services rendered by I.T.A. No.2109/Del/2022 4 these foreign commission agents also include ‘quality checks’ which requires technical expertise such payments thus fall within the ambit of ‘fee for technical services’ and such services are being utilized for the purpose of business carried out in India or for earning any income from source

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated 07.04.2023 addressed to the President, Income

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

144C r.w. Section 144B of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 1 because of (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in disposing ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee holding the same as general in nature whereby

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

144C r.w. Section 144B of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 1 because of (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in disposing ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee holding the same as general in nature whereby

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections filed by the assessee observing as under: “2.8 The submissions have been examined along with materials available on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has a Tax Residence Certificate of Mauritius. To that extent, the contention that it is resident in Mauritius is in order. However, even in case where

RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

144C 2 SA No. 77/Del/2021 Religare Enterprises Ltd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act5) by the assessing officer (‘impugned order") is illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That or the facts and in law, the impugned order passed by the assessing officer is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1) of the Act and is therefore

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

144C of the Act. Vide letter dated 17.03.2021, the assessees informed the AO that they were not willing to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel and reserved the right to appeal before CIT(A) against the final assessment orders. Accordingly, final assessment orders were passed. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A) The A0, arrived

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

purchased in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 on the floor of the stock exchange and the sales were made in FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 of the same. Further, as highlighted that the shares of the scrip of the M/s Odyssey Corporation Ltd. was manipulated in the above time frame. So. it can be said quite evidently

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXAION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

purchased in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 on the floor of the stock exchange and the sales were made in FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 of the same. Further, as highlighted that the shares of the scrip of the M/s Odyssey Corporation Ltd. was manipulated in the above time frame. So. it can be said quite evidently

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

144C(4)/143(3) of Income tax Act, 1961,( ‘the Act’ for short). 2. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal:- DCIT Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. I.T.A. No. 1977/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) 1. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in deleting addition made

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

144C(4)/143(3) of Income tax Act, 1961,( ‘the Act’ for short). 2. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal:- I.T.A. No. 1976/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2013-14) DCIT Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. 1. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in deleting addition made

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB