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

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

depreciable assets, the sale proceeds of the assets is required to be reduced from the WDV of the assets as per the provisions of section 43(6) 3 Mobase India P Ltd., of the Act, which the assessee has duly done following the provisions of section 43(6). D- Other Grounds 8. Levy of Interest U/s 234B, 234C and 234D

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5(1)(1), Plot No.A-5, Sector 132, Noida. Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AACCA2982J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri S. Chakarborty, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date of Order : 16.06.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

VEDANTA LTD (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LTD),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

144C of the 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2013-14 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assessing the total income and adjusted book profit of the Appellant at Rs.906

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.

5. Without prejudice, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer/Hon’ble DRP has erred in not allowing set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation while computing taxable income for the subject assessment year. 5.1Based on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144C (5) of the Act vide order dated 18/10/2016. After following the directions issued by the DRP, the Transfer Pricing Officer has given an order giving effect vide order dated 8/11/2016 thereby making revised total adjustment to that of 5 Rs.9,09,36,248/-. The assessment order was passed on 24/11/2016 thereby making an additions as per the directions given

SMEC INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Range-2, M/S. Smec International Pvt. Ltd., Bansal’S Flat, P-39 , 1St New Delhi Floor, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi Pan : Aaics3406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. M. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Giving Effect To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short ‘Drp’). The Grounds Raised In Appeal Were Modified Through An Application Dated 24/09/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Rejecting Books Of Account As There Are No Descrepancies & The Lower Profit Is No Reason To Reject The Books Of Account & The A O Is Also Wrong In Holding That The Separate Project Wise

section 144C(5) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. In grounds No. 1 to 3 , the assessee challenged rejection of books of accounts and estimation of net profit at the rate of 10% of the revenue recognized during the year. 3.1 The facts in respect of issue

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence depreciation on the same shall be eligible at the rate applicable to other intangible assets specified therein. The assessee has also placed reliance on various judicial precedents.” 68. The ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the goodwill by observing

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and hence depreciation on the same shall be eligible at the rate applicable to other intangible assets specified therein. The assessee has also placed reliance on various judicial precedents.” 68. The ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the AO to allow the depreciation on the goodwill by observing

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 Act in pursuance of the directions dated 31 December 2015 issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel -New Delhi (herein referred to as "DRP"). 1. The order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP is bad in law and facts and is liable to be set aside on the grounds

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), is illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the impugned assessment at an income of Rs. 1322,13,35,445 against income of Rs. 2 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 1006,66,79,810 declared by the appellant in the return

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

144C of the Act, we request your goodself to allow us the benefit of working capital adjustment. Based on the above submission, we request your goodself to rectify the above- mentioned defects by passing a suitable order under section 154 of the Act and accordingly issue the revised assessment order. ------------------------------ Unquote 2. In addition to the above-mentioned prima facie

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

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.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

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.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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.297,48,60,850 as against the income of Rs.119,58,24,310 returned by the appellant. Corporate Tax issues 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation of Rs.158,73,13,884 claimed under