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

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

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

C – 511, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. (PAN : AAACG2019N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Rahul Khare & Rohan Khare, Advocates REVENUE BY : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 14.09.2017 Date of Order : 12.10.2017 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, M/s. Globerian India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee

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

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

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

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No. 15, Circle-5(1), Okhla Industrial Estate-Iii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aaics9919F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. Shri Parth, Adv. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2019

depreciation on trade mark and loss on foreign exchange fluctuation as operative cost and ignoring the fact that the adjusted margin of the appellant based on actual OP/OC is 17.64%. The CIT (A) have provided no findings/directions on this ground. 11. The TPO / AO / CIT(A) has erred in law in not applying the Proviso to Section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6, 2022 passed by the Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (" Learned AO') under section 143(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

TEREX EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant's objections to the proposed adjustments, and merely relied on the reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - II (3) vide order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated October 15, 2010 ("TP Order"). On the facts

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:

6 concerns deletion of addition of Rs.89,00,000/- made by the AO for computation of the income for the purposes of Minimum Alternate Tax (‘MAT’) under Section 115JB of the Act. This pertained to the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The ITAT has rightly held that this being in the nature

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:

6 concerns deletion of addition of Rs.89,00,000/- made by the AO for computation of the income for the purposes of Minimum Alternate Tax (‘MAT’) under Section 115JB of the Act. This pertained to the expenditure incurred for earning exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The ITAT has rightly held that this being in the nature

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

144C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). 2.0 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Giesecke & Devrient GmBH(“G&D GmBH”) and is engaged in the business of trading of Currency Verification and Processing Systems (“CVPS”) and assembling and distribution of SIM cards

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

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act] dated 18/10/2012 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of income tax, circle 4 (1), New Delhi,[ The Ld AO ] wherein the income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 8 70418750/– under the normal provisions and the book profit of ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013

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

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act] dated 18/10/2012 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of income tax, circle 4 (1), New Delhi,[ The Ld AO ] wherein the income of the assessee is assessed at ₹ 8 70418750/– under the normal provisions and the book profit of ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013

M/S. GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

6 above, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no occasion or scope on the part of the Appellant to have not computed its arm’s length price in accordance with the provisions of section 92C of the Act with reference to such derived figure of 32% as a mark up on its operating cost

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

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