PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act by the assessing officer is not proper. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 31. With regard to ground No.7 the relevant facts are, during the assessment proceeding, Assessing Officer vide notice dated 17.03.2021 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act observed that the net loss on account

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)

disallowance of INR65,82,26,745 in the hands of the Appellant. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble DRP-V, New Delhi has erred

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)

disallowance of INR65,82,26,745 in the hands of the Appellant. 31. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble DRP-V, New Delhi has erred

JCB INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 37 of the Act. 13.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO has failed to follow the principles of judicial discipline while passing the draft assessment order as the AO has not followed the 7 JCB INDIA LTD. Vs. DCIT decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate

GOPURI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

35A of the Act and such deduction has been allowed consistently and there is no change in facts of the case and on that basis the CIT (A) ought to have considered the same and allowed the said deduction under Section 80-G / 80-GGA of the Act read with 35AC of the Act. 3 Gopuri Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT

PARIJAT TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

35A of the Act and such deduction has been allowed consistently and there is no change in facts of the case and on that basis the CIT (A) ought to have considered the same and allowed the said deduction under Section 80-G / 80-GGA of the Act read with 35AC

PARIJAT TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT-CPC, BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

35A of the Act and such deduction has been allowed consistently and there is no change in facts of the case and on that basis the CIT (A) ought to have considered the same and allowed the said deduction under Section 80-G / 80-GGA of the Act read with 35AC

SUNFLOWER TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD - 2(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

35A of the Act and such deduction has been allowed consistently and there is no change in facts of the case and on that basis the CIT (A) ought to have considered the same and allowed the said deduction under Section 80-G / 80-GGA of the Act read with 35AC of the Act. 4 Sunflower Trust 1.5 The learned

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd

disallowing a portion of the export earnings by adopting formula provided in section 80 HHC of the IT Act. This view was taken by the Madras High Court not only in Rathore Brothers (supra) but also in M.Gani & Co.(supra) which in turn followed yet another judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh

ALFANAR ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM, HARYANA, INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURUGRAM, GURUGRAM, HARYANA, INDIA

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

35A before the DRP and the primary arguments of the assessee was against re-characterization of the CCDs issued by AEPL into equity as well as rejection of benchmarking analysis undertaken using Bloomberg database and NSDL database. The Panel considered the submissions and the fact that the Ld. TPO has mentioned that: "5.2 The assessee has submitted that

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2017-18

35A of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for stay of recovery of demand of tax and interest amounting to Rs. 6,83,71,320/- pertaining to the assessment year (“AY”) 2017-18. The stay application came up for hearing on 25.02.2022. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the issues involved in the appeal

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Huawei Telecommunications Vs. Dcit, (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Circle 2(1), 7Th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze-1- Gurgaon Tech Park, Sohna Road, (Haryana) Gurgaon, Haryana Pin: 122 001 Aabch1376E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C(1) of the Act. B. CORPORATE TAX 25. The learned AO/Hon'ble DRP, has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, in disallowing 30% of the advertisement expenditure amounting to INR 1,89,71,525/- on adhoc basis by alleging that the same is capital in nature and further that these expenses result

BALAJI POWERTRONICS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 43(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. Dcit, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 Pan :Aagfb0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 438 and 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 are clarificatory and retrospective in operation when amendments have been held as prospective applicable for the period after 01.04.2021 in Raj Kumar Vs ITO [2022] 136 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi Trib.)[28-02- 2022] holding that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

35A) 3 41-46 additional evidence. Submissions 1 129-146 07.02.2023 Written submissions filed. before DRP 3 59-11 Part hearing conducted virtually; 09.02.2023 DRP Hearing - - DRP indicated it would call for a remand report from AO. Petitioner submitted note 10.02.2023 Brief Note filed - - summarising key facts and arguments. Virtual hearing conducted before 27.04.2023 DRP Hearing - - DRP. DRP issued directions

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

35A) 3 41-46 additional evidence. Submissions 1 129-146 07.02.2023 Written submissions filed. before DRP 3 59-11 Part hearing conducted virtually; 09.02.2023 DRP Hearing - - DRP indicated it would call for a remand report from AO. Petitioner submitted note 10.02.2023 Brief Note filed - - summarising key facts and arguments. Virtual hearing conducted before 27.04.2023 DRP Hearing - - DRP. DRP issued directions

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD,AUSTRALIA vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BELGIUM BVBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves