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

1,180,478,489 is the price\npayable for the 25,651,389 put option shares owned by ECom;\n(B) notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the\nOffshore agreement (including, but not limited to, clauses 4.\nJ and 4.4 of the offshore agreement) and notwithstanding the\nprovision of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between\nIndia and Mauritius, Vodafone

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously stated that the reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT (16) (1) DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1862/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Microsoft Corporation (India) P. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacm-5586-C बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ip Estate, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, (Through Vc) & Parth, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2022, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Nageswar Rao, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That, At This Stage He Is Confining His Submissions To Ground No. 1 Of Appeal

gain complete and up- to-date access to all relevant data in regard to an assessee's assessment would available on the 360 degree screen. 36. Learned Standing Counsel draws attention to letter dated 12.12.2024 from the Secretariat of the DRP, specifically the portion where the DRP 35 states that ‘no separate mail had been sent

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

section also\nexempts capital gains arising from a unit of an equity-oriented fund. This\ntreatment of capital gain to both equity shares and units of equity oriented\nfunds logically establish that units of equity funds are analogous/have\nsemblance with the equity shares.\n\n• Thus, the intent of Income Tax Law is very clear to treat the units

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and consequently the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have grossly erred by denying the appellant, the benefit of Article 13(5) and any other benefits under

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

section 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

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital Gain according to the domestic tax laws i.e. Income tax Act, 1961. Hence the amount is chargeable to tax, according to the domestic laws of India. Based on this he framed draft assessment order under section 143 (3) rws section 148 and section 144 C (1) of the Income Tax Act on 09/03/2015. 15. Assessee preferred its objection against

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

144C(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The following effective grounds have been raised in this appeal:- “1. The assessee had applied tax rate of 10% in the terms of the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act. However

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

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANT. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; ………. (iva) the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment but not including the amounts referred to in section 4413B

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act as against the income of INR 25,27,45,360/-per the modified return of income filed by the Appellant. In doing so, the Ld. AO has erred in making an adjustment of INR 2,21,26,058/- which comprises of the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') based adjustment amounting

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

capital gains (LTGCs). The AO arrived at the said figure by adjusting the total sale consideration amounting Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:01.12.2023 14:51:47 Signature Not Verified ITA No.405/2022 Page 4 of 23 to Rs. 41,24,35,969/- against the cost of acquisition, i.e., Rs. 4,91,20,000/-. 5. Being dissatisfied, the respondent/assessee filed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

capital gains (LTGCs). The AO arrived at the said figure by adjusting the total sale consideration amounting Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:01.12.2023 14:51:47 Signature Not Verified ITA No.405/2022 Page 4 of 23 to Rs. 41,24,35,969/- against the cost of acquisition, i.e., Rs. 4,91,20,000/-. 5. Being dissatisfied, the respondent/assessee filed

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

144C(13) of the Act. ITA No.-1807/Del/2022 Bhupinder Singh Julka 2. That ground no 2 to 2.2 relates to grievance of appellant in respect of addition of Rs. 3,37,202/- representing alleged short term capital gain as against claim of long term capital loss of Rs. 81,42,760/- on sale of capital asset by the appellant

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)2, DELHI vs. KESAV SREE KUMAR KESAVAN NAIR, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

1) of the Act, as the Assessee is an eligible assessee, being a non-resident, under section 144C (15) of the Act. Hence the Assessment order dated 30-03-2022 is bad and invalid in law. 3. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify, rectify and amend all or any of the Grounds of cross objections before

DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI vs. KESAV SREE KUMAR KESAVAN NAIR, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

1) of the Act, as the Assessee is an eligible assessee, being a non-resident, under section 144C (15) of the Act. Hence the Assessment order dated 30-03-2022 is bad and invalid in law. 3. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify, rectify and amend all or any of the Grounds of cross objections before