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

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(13

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. 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

13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ("the Act") dated 20.01.2023 is bad in law and on facts, void ab initio as the same has been passed in violation of section 144C of the Act 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in violating the procedure laid down under

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

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)

disallowance of delayed payment of contribution, the DRP had directed that assessing officer to consider the judicial precedents as highlighted by the appellant [refer para 3.4.2 of DRP order], which has again been completely ignored by the assessing officer while passing the final order. 37. As per provisions of section 144C(10) read with section 144C(13

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

NIKON INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

Section 144C(13) of the Act. A TP adjustment of Rs. 49,97,50,823/- was however made in the final assessment order towards alleged international transactions of AMP alleged to be incurred for development of the brand owned by its foreign AE. The AO also made certain additions of Rs.2,40,28,377/- as disallowance

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment

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

13) of section 144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send a copy of the assessment order to the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxx) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, upon receipt of the assessment order referred to in clause (xxvi) or clause (xxix), as the case may be, serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating

JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance. 14. Ld. AO/ DRP has erred in computing the total income basis the Intimation dated 28.12.2021 issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, without validating the erroneous adjustments made therein. 15. Ld. AO has erred in allowing the credit of tax deducted at source ('TDS') only to the extent of INR 1,65,13,08,947/- while determining

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of deduction under Section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs.6,38,13,601/-. 45. The AO observed that the assessee has claimed deduction to the extent of Rs.6,38,13,601/- under Section 80G of the Act. The AO noted that the assessee has filed the list of mostly private institutions/trust/university to whom the assessee has made contribution

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

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

13) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed on 30th April, 2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order dated

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 No.2- Addition made by the learned AO of the amount under the head "any other allowable deduction" in Column No 33 of Schedule BP of the Income Tax Return

BMW INDIA PVT LTD,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE1(1), GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Bmw India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Oberoi Centre Of Income Tax, Circle (1), Building No. 11, Dlf Cyber Hsiidc Building, Vanijya City Dlf Phase, Gurgaon, Nikunj Udhyog Vihar, Haryuana, 122001 Phase-5, Gurgaon, Pan: Aabcb7140C Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha-Adv, Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv& Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)-Gurgaon, Dated 28/06/2022 U/S254R.W. Section 143(3)/144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short).

13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the DRP directions, beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that initially a Final assessment Order came to be passed on 19/02/2016u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), pertaining to Assessment Year

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]

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10AA of the Act amounting to Rs. 3.17 crores and framed an order dated 21.02.2018, which was captioned as ‘Draft Assessment Order’ but was accompanied by notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings. 8. In our considered opinion, assessment proceedings concluded

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