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

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. 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

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

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)

disallowed. 5.3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in stating that the expenditure is unexplained without appreciating that this is not an expenditure of the appellant. The appellant has paid more than IN 10 Crore salaries to their employees and if the employees have gone ahead and spent

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

144C of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) by The Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi (the Learned AO) for assessment year 2012 – 13 wherein the returned income of the assessee filed on 28/11/2012 of ₹ 375,363,411/- was assessed at Rs. 1,204,023,319/– and the book profit computed u/s 115JB

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

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

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

Disallowance Add: Addition on account of excess physical 14,28,834/- stock Add: Addition on account of less physical ~~~ 20,00,9801- stock Add: Addition on account of deemed account in the Rs. 1,25,00,0001- case of Mis Spiral EHL Engineering Pvt Ltd . Add: Addition on account of deemed account in the Rs 41,10,00,0001 case

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

144C(4)/143(3) of Income tax Act, 1961,( ‘the Act’ for short). 2. The Revenue has raised the following ground of appeal:- DCIT Vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. I.T.A. No. 1977/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) 1. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in deleting addition made

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

144C(4)/143(3) of the Act dated 31/1/2018. As against the assessment order dated 31/01/2018 the assessee has preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 24/09/2020 partly allowed the Appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 24/09/2020 the Department of Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. 8. At the time of hearing

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 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), vide order, dated 20.02.2015, at an income of Rs. 9158,75,47,743/- as against the income of Rs. 1630,20,76,9847- returned by the appellant. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in enhancing the value of closing inventory of raw materials & components and thereby

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) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") pursuant to the directions passed

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 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

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 which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

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

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 which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

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