ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METALS RUSSIA INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

92E read with section 271 BA of the Act are not applicable. The provisions of section 92D read with section 271G of the Act are not applicable.” 15 ITA.No.108/Del./2014 M/s. Metals Russia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 3.5. The assessee further objected to the Order of the A.O. to apply provisions of Section 44BBB

TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation being the owner of the asset after execution of sale and lease back arrangement. In this process, the tax liability is reduced under the domestic laws of both countries. He observed, since benefits similar to Article 8 of India–Singapore DTAA is not available either under India–Netherlands DTAA or India–Japan DTAA and shipping income is also differently

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I

The appeal is dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has ITA No.578/12 Page 11 of 22 escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

depreciation, professional charges paid to sub-contractors, and other day to day administration expenses. Invoicing - SARD is required to raise the invoice on its AEs at the time of export of software to its AEs. Further, SARD is also required to submit an itemized statement of costs and man hours spent in connection with the export of the relevant product

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

depreciation, professional charges paid to sub-contractors, and other day to day administration expenses. Invoicing - SARD is required to raise the invoice on its AEs at the time of export of software to its AEs. Further, SARD is also required to submit an itemized statement of costs and man hours spent in connection with the export of the relevant product

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciable assets. 16. That the AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in adjusting book profit under section 115JB of the Act by Rs.98,53,213 on account of provision for diminution in value of current investments written back during the year. 17. That the AO erred on facts and in law in law in charging interest under section 234B

DONALDSON INDIA FILTERS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1)

section 92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or 2015:DHC:489-DB ITA 86/2014 Page 8 (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but- (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but- (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation allowance P a g e | 34 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment your concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section

M/S ROKI MINDA CO. PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above contentions keeping all other issues open

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiroki Minda Co. Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, B-64/1, Wazipur Indl. Area, Circle-21(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aajca3556F (Appellant) (Respondent)

92E, "international transaction" means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or…..'. The Explanation below sub-section (2) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2002 clarifies, for the removal of doubts that

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT., SPECIAL RANGE -8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6813/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Of 20Th -24Th Floors, Dlf Two Horizon Income Tax, Special Range-8 Center, Sector-13, Gurgaon, New Delhi-110002 Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs5123K Assessee By : Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr & Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.01.2020

depreciation of Rs. 2,05,26,740. 17. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in violation of provisions of the section 144C(10) of the Act, the AO/ TPO erred in not following the direction of the DRP wherein the AO/ TPO was directed to reduce the disallowance by only considering the transactions wherein

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation by the in the final assessment order. (vii) In Ground No. 46, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and as such is consequential in nature. (viii) Ground No. 47 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation by the in the final assessment order. (vii) In Ground No. 46, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and as such is consequential in nature. (viii) Ground No. 47 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation by the in the final assessment order. (vii) In Ground No. 46, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and as such is consequential in nature. (viii) Ground No. 47 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation by the in the final assessment order. (vii) In Ground No. 46, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and as such is consequential in nature. (viii) Ground No. 47 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation by the in the final assessment order. (vii) In Ground No. 46, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and as such is consequential in nature. (viii) Ground No. 47 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature