ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

144C(13). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at IN 3,72,72,181 by making an Ariba India Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT addition amounting to INR 2,45,25,401 as against the returned income amounting

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

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

section 144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

section 144C, making addition of Rs.4,70,99,145, which included transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,91,52,594 and disallowance

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

disallowance/ additions and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete such other objections before or during the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT'), so as to enable the Hon'ble ITAT to decide on the grounds raised

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

section 144C(10) of the Act; (d) the submissions/ evidence(s) placed on record has not been considered by the assessing officer, in blatant violation of fundamental principles of assessment. Further, additions/ disallowances

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act and titled the order as “Assessment order”. 4. While framing the said order, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by observing at Para 13 as under: Total Income as per return of income filed 5,68,38,810 uls 139 of the IT Act on 30.03.2021 61,83,77,505/- Deemed total

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

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order dated 30.04.2021, at an income of Rs. 31,66,82,06,82 1-/- under the normal provisions and at book profit of Rs. 43,79,43,08,839 under section 1l5JB of the Act. Re: Transfer Pricing Adjustment under section 92CA relating to inter unit transfer 2. That

ROLLS-ROYCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT TP 3(2)(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

disallowances of INR 6.96.67,905 to the total income filed the Appellant. Final assessment order is invalid 2. erred in passing the final assessment order dated 18 November 2021 by the Ld. AO u/s Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

144C (13) of the Income Tax Act on draft assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act incorporating adjustments proposed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (in short ‗TPO‘) in his order under section 92CA (3) of the Income Tax Act. 2) As common issues are involved in both these appeals

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

144C of the [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The challenge of the assessee is two-fold: a) Firstly, the assessee has challenged the legality of the order dated 21.12.2018 by framing the so-called draft assessment order. The Assessing Officer has completed proceedings by issuing demand notice and initiating penalty

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

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

disallowance of Rs.1,14,36,265/- on account of depreciation on computers. 3. The Learned DCIT erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs.4,12,04,919/- being a difference in Arms length Price.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : in compliance to the directions issued by ITAT

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

disallowance have been incorporated and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of review and the term "review unit", wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned by the Board. (4) The assessment unit, verification unit, technical unit and the review unit shall have the following authorities, namely:— (i) Additional

AERO CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 144C(13), the due date starts from the date, the Assessing Officer receives the directions of the ld. DRP and since the order has been passed within the due date from the date of the receipt of Assessing Officer on 15.09.2022, the order has been rightly passed on 28.10.2022. 9. The arguments of the ld. DR in writing

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order dated 30.01.2018, at an income of Rs. 5871,58,67,760/- under the normal provisions and at book profit of Rs. 1799,03,00,809 under section 115JB of the Act. 2. That the assessing officer / the Transfer Pricing Officer (the TPO) erred on facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance

NIKON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiita No. 8753/Del/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16)

144C(1) of the Act in the case of an eligible assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed by the AO / TPO were bad in law as the pre-requisite for applying Chapter - X, ie, existence of international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under section

NIKON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiita No. 8753/Del/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16)

144C(1) of the Act in the case of an eligible assessee. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed by the AO / TPO were bad in law as the pre-requisite for applying Chapter - X, ie, existence of international transaction between two Associated Enterprises (“AE”) under section