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

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

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)

3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the purchases made from Vijay Iron Works are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 1,16,52,984/- in the returned income. 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case

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)

3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP erred in holding that the purchases made from Vijay Iron Works are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 1,16,52,984/- in the returned income. 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case

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

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

purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. assessing officer/ Id. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in making adjustment of Rs.23,06,351/- on account of commission on standby letter of credit.” 3. Grounds No.1 of the concise ground (supra) is dismissed as not pressed in the wake of averments made

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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

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)

Purchase of consumables 40117002 1 Rental expenses paid 349054107 2 Contract manpower/job work or 116032264 3 services availed Management fees paid 45996007 4 Reimbursement of expenses 33193514 5 16. The learned transfer-pricing officer noted that the assessee has furnished the transfer pricing documentation on 20/1/2014 however, it was not corroborated with statutory certificate in form number 3

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

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

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

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

144C of the Act. The assessee has earned an LTCG of Rs. 4,07,88,000/- on sale of shares of M/s Gemini Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. On examination of the computation of LTCG it was observed that the assessee has taken deduction of capital gain earned on sale of shares under section 54F of the Act. To claim the benefit

AMAZON WEB SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 3. In exercise of power vested under him under section 263 of the Act the Ld. PCIT perused and examined the records. He referred to the notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued to assessee and assessee’s response thereto. He concluded as under:- “The reply is evasive and assessee continues

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

TERADATA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Tower-4A, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon S-Block, Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent) & S.A. No.977/Del/2018 [Arising Out Of Ita No.8054/Del/2018] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Teradata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 301-302, 3Rd Floor, Tower-4A, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon S-Block, Dlf Corporate Park, Dlf City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan :Aacct6715A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Department By Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

144C of the Act on 29/10/2018 S.A. No. 977/Del/2018 and assessed total income at Rs.31,54,03,810/-. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. The grounds No. 1 and 2 of the appeal were claimed to be general in nature

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)

bogus purchases unearthed during the course of search and post searc proceedings. 8. That the order of CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any ground of appeal at the time or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts

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

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