M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in sub-section (3)." 12.3 Subsequently, section 201(3)(ii) of the Act came to be amended by Finance Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2010 whereby in sub-section (3) in clause (ii) words "four years" came to be substituted by words "six years". Amended section

CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more\nparticularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the\nnon-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings\nare not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the\nlearned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees\nthat the outer time limit under Section 153

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3) of the amended Act shall be subject to the intent of the legislature, and must be interpreted in line with the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it was enacted.‖ Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the limitation for completing assessment / reassessment is progressively being reduced which shows the conscious intent

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3) of the amended Act shall be subject to the intent of the legislature, and must be interpreted in line with the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which it was enacted.‖ Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the limitation for completing assessment / reassessment is progressively being reduced which shows the conscious intent

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed, and the\nstay application is dismissed as being infructuous

ii) Interim restraint on citing Bombay High Court judgment in case of Shelf\nDrilling\n6. At the admission stage of the matter arising from the\nBombay High Court judgment in case of Shelf Drilling Ron\nTappmeyer Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court passed an interim order dated 22.09.2023, directing\nthat the High Court judgment shall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PP ENGINEERING WORK

The appeal is disposed of

ii) of sub-section (3) of section 153 read with Explanation 2 thereunder, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 150 would be applicable and the bar of limitation under section 149 would not be applicable. While section 150(1) and section 153(3) contemplate issuance of notice under section 148 and completion of assessment, reassessment

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

3) of section 92CA; and [(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 153

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

3) of section 92CA; and [(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 153

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

3) of section 92CA; and [(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 153

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section 153

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section 153

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section 153

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.

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section 153

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) r.w. Section 144C(13) on 04/06/2024, which is beyond the\nstatutory limitation prescribed u/s 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act.\nThus submitted that, the impugned Final assessment order is barred by\nlimitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144Cof the Act, void ab initio\nand liable to be quashed.\n7.\nFor the sake of ready reference, date Chart

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Circle-13(1) Business Center, Gurgaon C.R. Building, Delhi Road, South West Delhi- 110037. Pan-Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sumit Mangal, Adv. Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : 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.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 23.10.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Bench Has Asked The Assessee To File Specific Ground Of Appeal No.2 As Against General Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Taken. In Compliance, Assessee Vide Application Dt. 12.03.2025 Filed Under Rule 11 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal Under. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Taken Reads As Under: Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

reassessment cannot be read into Section Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

153 C are: (i) Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer who is Assessing Officer of the section 153A noticee that money/bullion/jewellery/other valuable article or thing/books of account or documents (incriminating materials) seized/requisitioned belongs to/pertain to or any information contained, relates to, a third party. (ii) Recording of satisfaction as above. (iii) Handing over of the incriminating material to the Assessing Officer

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

153 C are: (i) Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer who is Assessing Officer of the section 153A noticee that money/bullion/jewellery/other valuable article or thing/books of account or documents (incriminating materials) seized/requisitioned belongs to/pertain to or any information contained, relates to, a third party. (ii) Recording of satisfaction as above. (iii) Handing over of the incriminating material to the Assessing Officer

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

153 C are: (i) Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer who is Assessing Officer of the section 153A noticee that money/bullion/jewellery/other valuable article or thing/books of account or documents (incriminating materials) seized/requisitioned belongs to/pertain to or any information contained, relates to, a third party. (ii) Recording of satisfaction as above. (iii) Handing over of the incriminating material to the Assessing Officer

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT LT.D,GURGOAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section 153