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

In the result, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay is\nhereby condoned.\n1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals\npertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has\n2\nITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022\nMUFG BANK LIMITED\nchallenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground

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

In the result, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay is\nhereby condoned.\n1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals\npertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has\nchallenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of\nlimitation considering the provisions of section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153

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

In the result, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay is\nhereby condoned.\n1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals\npertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has\n2\nITA NOS. 134/D/23, 3929/D/24, 844/D/21,1476/D/22 & 1477/D/2022\nMUFG BANK LIMITED\nchallenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground

VOITH HYDRO P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay was condoned. The core issue revolves around the interplay of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning

M/S. SUPERBRANDS LIMITED (UK),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

delay is condoned. 6. Except for appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3115/DEL/2009, the assessee has raised additional ground which is common in all the Assessment Years and reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and void

SUPER BRANDS LTD (UK),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

delay is condoned. 6. Except for appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3115/DEL/2009, the assessee has raised additional ground which is common in all the Assessment Years and reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and void

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

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

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 WITNESS 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 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

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 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

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,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 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