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

144C (13) of the Income Tax Act final assessment order on 25th January 2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 245035012588/– as short-term capital gain chargeable to tax in the hands of appellant taxable at the rate of 40%. Subject to chargeability of surcharge and cess as applicable. Further, Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT

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)

B) notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Offshore agreement (including, but not limited to, clauses 4. J and 4.4 of the offshore agreement) and notwithstanding the provision of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius, Vodafone or Vodafone s nominee or VG Pic as Guarantor can deduct from the payment of the put option price

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

B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 19.04.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.07.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 14.03.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year

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

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, 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

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

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

gains from alienation of movable or immovable property as well as on capital appreciation. 2. The existing taxes to which the Agreement shall apply are; (a) In United Arab Emirates: (i) Income tax; (ii) Corporation tax; (iii) Wealth-tax (hereinafter referred to as “U.A.E. tax”) 3. This Agreement shall also apply to any identical or substantially similar taxes on income

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

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act concluding that the Assessee under the garb of share transaction, has transacted the underlying assets of the company UEM and determined the capital gains by substituting the full value of consideration received by the Assessee (i.e., Rs. 14,25,24,594.16/) with the total capitalized value of tangible assets of the Company

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act concluding that the Assessee under the garb of share transaction, has transacted the underlying assets of the company UEM and determined the capital gains by substituting the full value of consideration received by the Assessee (i.e., Rs. 14,25,24,594.16/) with the total capitalized value of tangible assets of the Company

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act concluding that the Assessee under the garb of share transaction, has transacted the underlying assets of the company UEM and determined the capital gains by substituting the full value of consideration received by the Assessee (i.e., Rs. 14,25,24,594.16/) with the total capitalized value of tangible assets of the Company

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession.” 19. The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki ultimately held: “36. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation

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

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

144C passed by Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi vide order dated 27/10/2017. 2. As regards Ground No. 3 to 3.1, relating to addition of freight inward/import clearing expenses to cost of closing inventory amounting to Rs. 3,17,000, it can be seen that the Assessee purchases raw material on CIF basis and included the freight cost for delivery

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

144C passed by DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vide order dated 20/1/2017. 2. Ground No. 1 to 15 relate to addition of Transfer Pricing Adjustment u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition/disallowance for Model Fee is Rs.172.08 Crore and for royalty is Rs.3.53 crore. During the relevant previous year, the assessee, for the purpose

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

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO- OPERATION AGENCY,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

2) of the Act, the appellant could not provide or furnish information different from and/or conflicting with the statutory declaration in Form 64 furnished to the income-tax authority by the venture capital fund (SARA Fund) and was bound by the stand adopted by SARA Fund. (vi) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned