COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

8) The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the power

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the DRP is an order of assessment, is further supported by the following provisions: - Section 2(8) of the Act, which defines assessment to include reassessment

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the DRP is an order of assessment, is further supported by the following provisions: - Section 2(8) of the Act, which defines assessment to include reassessment

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

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)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

RED FORT SHAHJAHAN PROPERTIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member

8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision relied on. The sequence of events in this case for both the assessment years i.e. A.Y.2014- 15 and A.Y.2017-18 from the date of passing of the DRP directions on 19.04.2022 till the date of passing of final assessment order on 27.06.2022 are as under :- Sr. Particulars

RED FORT SHAHJAHAN PROPERTIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member

8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision relied on. The sequence of events in this case for both the assessment years i.e. A.Y.2014- 15 and A.Y.2017-18 from the date of passing of the DRP directions on 19.04.2022 till the date of passing of final assessment order on 27.06.2022 are as under :- Sr. Particulars

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income

CHIRAG KIRPAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

13) of the Act on 21-02- 2025 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 65,02,482/-. Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. It is not in dispute that the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29-3-2023 has been issued by ITO (International Taxn), Gurgoan to the assessee for the assessment

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 1448 of IT Act, the case was duly transferred to the jurisdiction AO, who has no previous idea about the assessment proceedings in the case. However it is pointed out, that, even during the DRP stage and even after providing opportunity by AO, the assessee could not submit any evidence with respect to bank statement of assessee and also

LINTEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SOUTH DELHI, DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), OFFICE OF DCIT, CR BUILDING, DELHI,

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwallintec India Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 14Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Nehru Place, South Delhi, Delhi Office Of The Dcit, C. R. 110019, Building, Delhi Pan: Aaccl23772F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

8. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd (supra) held that, time limit prescribed u/s 153 of the Act has to be adhered to and that both Section 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The presence of notwithstanding clause in Section 144C(13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

8. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that invoking of section 153A of the Act merely on the basis of Panchanama in absence of execution of search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act. 9. That on the facts & circumstances of the case

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

8. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that invoking of section 153A of the Act merely on the basis of Panchanama in absence of execution of search u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act. 9. That on the facts & circumstances of the case

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.

8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The preliminary contention of the Revenue is that, the issue regarding the limitation arising from the interplay between Section 144C and 153 of the Act is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said issue has already been referred to Larger Bench

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order despite the fact that the notice issued under section 148A(b), order passed under section 148A(d), notice issued under section 148 of the Act and consequent reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order despite the fact that the notice issued under section 148A(b), order passed under section 148A(d), notice issued under section 148 of the Act and consequent reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s