M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the basis of proceedings concluded for a subsequent assessment year and not A T Kearney India Private Limited V ITO A Y 2005-06 & 2007-08 ITA no 510& 511 /Del/2014 Page 27 of 31 on the basis of any tangible material available for the concerned assessment year. 1.3. Based

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law, giving the opinion that the Assessing Officer was wrong in apportioning the AMP expenses amongst the assessee and its two sisterly concerns, since the assessee is a marketing entity while the latter two are purely manufacturing concerns without considering

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

7 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make additions even on the ground on which reassessment notice might not have been issued during reassessment proceedings, hut he arrives at a conclusion that such other income has escaped assessment which comes to his notice during course of proceedings of reassessment under section 148. The provision no where postulates

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7. Further, it is relevant and appropriate to make reference to letter dated 13.03.2007 issued by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings pursuant to order u/s 264. As per this letter, the AO has specifically made reference to modus operandi of the assessee along with in-depth note on provisions of section 80IC. The relevant portion

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7. Further, it is relevant and appropriate to make reference to letter dated 13.03.2007 issued by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings pursuant to order u/s 264. As per this letter, the AO has specifically made reference to modus operandi of the assessee along with in-depth note on provisions of section 80IC. The relevant portion

DCIT, CIRCLE- I, FARIDABAD vs. HEENA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IC(7) and 801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? “ C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020 – [By the assessee] (Heena export Corporation) “ 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law, for the assumption & misapplication of jurisdiction for reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD vs. HEENA EXPORT CORPORATION, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IC(7) and 801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? “ C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020 – [By the assessee] (Heena export Corporation) “ 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law, for the assumption & misapplication of jurisdiction for reassessment

HENNA EXPORTS CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. ADDL. CIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IC(7) and 801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? “ C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020 – [By the assessee] (Heena export Corporation) “ 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law, for the assumption & misapplication of jurisdiction for reassessment

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the reassessment is held to be bad in law the appeal of the assessee on this point is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Dcit Circle -1 (1), 5Th Floor, Jindal Centre Vs 12, Bhikaji Cama Place Hsidc Building, New Delhi – 110066 Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Pan : Aaacj7097D Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings were initiated notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 24.03.2015. With this notice the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment framed vide order dated 19.09.2013 the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening assessment reads as under :- Name and address of the assessee M's Jindai Steel and Power Limited. O P Jindai Mary

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income but was filed during the course of assessment. 27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific statutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section 10B(8), which