L.S CABLE INDIA PVT LTD ,REWARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] L S Cable India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.28-31, Sector-5, Cirlce-13(1), Phase-Ii, Hsiidc Gc Bawal, New Delhi Rewari, Haryana-23501. Pan-Aabcl3621Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2025

144C(13) of the Act on 24.08.2022 by making addition of Rs. 13,12,50,050/- as proposed by TPO in its order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 6,79,40,935/-. 4. Aggrieved with the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal

GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, the international transactions entered into by the assessee with the associated enterprises were referred to the Transfer Pricing Office for determining the Arms Length Price. The TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, on 21/1/2016 thereby making adjustment of Rs. 7,73,93,666/-. The draft assessment was passed on 15/3/2016

M/S. GLOBERIAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation 1,14,36,265 (As per para 3 above) ii) Addition under transfer pricing 4,12,04,919 adjustment as discussed in para 4.3 above TOTAL TAXABLE INOCME 5,26,41,184 3. Aggrieved with the order passed by the AO, the assessee company come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) read with section 144C( 13) read with section 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

A.T. KEARNEY LTD.- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4405/Del/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2003-04 बनाम A.T. Kearney Ltd., Adit India Branch Office, Vs. Circle 1(1) 14Th Floor, Tower D, International Taxation, Global Business Park, New Delhi. Gurgaon.

depreciation had been allowed by the Ld. Assessing Officer by way of rectification of original assessment order dated March 23, 2006. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer/Hon’ble DRP has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. That on the facts and circumstances

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEMASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on buildings, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel directed the learned assessing officer to not to make such adjustment as it is not warranted according to the provisions of section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. 27. Consequent to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel the learned Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 143 (3

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on buildings, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel directed the learned assessing officer to not to make such adjustment as it is not warranted according to the provisions of section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act. 27. Consequent to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel the learned Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 143 (3

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

depreciation under section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding\nthat the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature.\n9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating\ngains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as \"business income” as against\nthe same being declared under the head capital gains\" by the appellant.\n9.1 That

MOBASE INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

3) r.w.s 144C(13) and 144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act dated 30/03/2021 without first proposing such adjustment in the draft order passed u/s 144 dated 25/11/2019 4.2 as his action of not proposing the adjustments in the draft order u/s 144C has prevented the Appellant from filing the objection before

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.440,00,17,750 as against the income of Rs. 196,98,53,050 returned by the appellant. 38 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Corporate Tax issues 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, depreciation

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.440,00,17,750 as against the income of Rs. 196,98,53,050 returned by the appellant. 38 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Corporate Tax issues 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, depreciation

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.440,00,17,750 as against the income of Rs. 196,98,53,050 returned by the appellant. 38 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Corporate Tax issues 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, depreciation

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.440,00,17,750 as against the income of Rs. 196,98,53,050 returned by the appellant. 38 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Corporate Tax issues 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, depreciation

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs.440,00,17,750 as against the income of Rs. 196,98,53,050 returned by the appellant. 38 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 Corporate Tax issues 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, depreciation