UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act, dated 27.06.2024 wherein total income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 62,36,67,760/- by making transfer pricing adjustments of ₹ 34,37,80,273/- to the total income of the appellant. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

144B of the Act on 30.04.2022 making an\nadjustment of Rs. 80,32,194/- on account of provision of IS & T Services.\n19. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us on the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld.\nAO)/Learned Transfer

COMPASS INDIA SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

144B of the Act on 30.04.2022 making an\nadjustment of Rs. 80,32,194/- on account of provision of IS & T Services.\n19. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us on the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld.\nAO)/Learned Transfer

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

depreciation under section 57 of the Act extracted by the Tribunal in para 22 of its order (supra) for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. We order accordingly." 12. Respectfully following the coordinate Bench order in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (supra), the issue is decided in favour of the assessee with the same directions

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

depreciation under section 57 of the Act extracted by the Tribunal in para 22 of its order (supra) for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. We order accordingly." 12. Respectfully following the coordinate Bench order in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 (supra), the issue is decided in favour of the assessee with the same directions

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

144B of the Act, on the alleged ground that the AO had erroneously failed to examine the following six (6) issues: (i) Related party transactions; (ii) Genuineness of platform selling expenses; (iii) Provision for doubtful advances; (iv) Provision for slow and ageing goods; (v) Various items in Balance Sheet and Audit Report; and (vi) Genuineness of advertisement expenses

BALLUPUR SOLAR POWER PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD. ,DELHI vs. AO CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 144B of the Act and remit the issue back to the file of the AO to conduct enquiry/cause to make enquiry through TPO as per law on the factual matrix regarding back to back purchases pointed out on behalf of Assessee. 7. We find rationale in the plea of the assessee that the disallowances warranted, if any, should

INTER GLOBLE AVIATION LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-10(1) ,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryinter Globle Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit Upper Ground Floor, Circle – 10(1) Westren Wing, Thapper New Delhi House-124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aabci 2726 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) - Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Inter Globle Aviation Ltd Vs Acit 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Airlines Under The Name & Style Of Indigo. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.04.2021 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-.

section 144B of the Act and also principles of natural justice. 2.3 That the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessing officer made huge additions/ disallowances without judiciously appreciating/ considering the legal and factual Inter Globle Aviation Ltd vs ACIT 4 contentions of the appellant and therefore, the assessment order is illegal and bad in law. Re: Incentive

ADOBE SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144B of the Income Tax Act,1961 (' Act') is barred by limitation since passed/issued beyond the maximum time limit prescribed under section 144C( 13) of the Act and hence is liable to be quashed/annulled as time barred. Henceforth all the grounds below are without prejudice to Ground no.1 above: 2. Ground No.2- Addition made by the learned

JUBILANT INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-5 (1)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

Section 143 (3) r.w.s. 144 C r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) whereby and whereunder addition of Rs.21,29,453/- rejecting the claim of depreciation

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

144B of the Act at assessed income of Rs.\n6,20,42,83,460/-.\n3.\nOn perusal of your balance sheet of column 5A & 5B, it has been observed\nthat there have been sharp increase of Rs.14,49,91,615/- under the sub-head\n\"Advance for properties\" and Rs.42,85,51,442/- under sub-head \"Advance to\nsuppliers\". During

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act, whereby, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee at an income of ₹133,46,92,080/- after making addition of *44,77,708/- on account of disallowance under Section 24(b) of the Act and also disallowed a sum of ₹40,10,848/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter

MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

section 263 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwai

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed on 30th April, 2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order dated 30.04.2021, at an income

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation claimed thereon. 6.1 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that subsidy received from the State Government was on capital account and was not directly or indirectly related to meeting any portion of the cost of any fixed asset. 6.2 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not following the binding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. TRIMASTER PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Trimaster Private Limited, Income Tax, Room No.192A, 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, First Floor, C.R. Building, Ito, Vs New Delhi-110020 Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.119/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.955/Del/2025 ) [Assessment Year: 2021-22 Trimaster Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income 222, Okhla Industrial Estate, Tax, Room No.192A, First Floor, New Delhi-110020 Vs C.R. Building, Ito, Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacn0138P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Nitini Kumar Sharma, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2026

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it wishes to withdraw its cross objections filed by CO No.119/Del/2025. Accordingly, the impugned Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

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

depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues.” 26. However, and on facts, it found as follows:- “33. There is no doubt that MRPL amalgamated with MIPL and ceased to exist thereafter; this is an established fact

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

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, the same

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

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, the same