PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

SUPERBRANDS LTD (UK),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.332/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Superbrands Ltd. (Uk) Dcit C/O Bdo India Llp 1501-1508, Vs. Circle 3(1)(2), Palm Spring Plaza, Sector-54, International Taxation, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana. Pan No. Aaics6497G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. In addition to the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds: Ground No. 3 “Without prejudice to ground no. 1 & 2, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned assessing officer erred in passing a draft

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

delay is hereby condoned. 1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation considering the provisions of section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153

MUFG BANK, LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTL. TAXATION , NEW DELHI

delay is hereby condoned. 1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018- 19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation considering the provisions of section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153

MUFG BANK LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD. ),DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

delay is hereby condoned. 1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018- 19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation considering the provisions of section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 134/Del/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3929/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.844/Del/2021 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 2(2)(1),International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1476/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 1

delay is hereby condoned. 1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018- 19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has 2 ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground

MUFG BANK LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD. ),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthimufg Bank Ltd., आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 134/Del/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Pan No.Aabct3880D E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3929/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate (Virtual) Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., बनाम 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Vs. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.844/Del/2021 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabct3880D Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1476/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 1

delay is hereby condoned. 1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018- 19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has 2 ITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022 MUFG BANK LIMITED challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

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

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PEGASUS SOFTECH PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee