COMPAREX INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

270A of the Act in the final assessment order passed for relevant AY.” 5. Further, assessee filed following additional grounds of appeal with the application under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1962:- “Pertaining to Transfer Pricing matters 16. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by not passing the final assessment order

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

270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under

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

270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under

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

270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under

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)

270A of the Act.” 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue argued the matter and filed the written submissions which are reproduced below :- “After the introduction of faceless assessment scheme, lot of legislative changes were also made in the Income Tax Act, for example till 31.03.2022 the NeAC was mandated to pass all the assessment orders. From

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

AEP INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer erred in law in levying interest under section 234B of the Act of INR 31,32,85,050. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also held reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also held reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

147 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also held reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

BOOKING.COM B.V.,THE NETHERLANDS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbooking.Com B.V. Vs. Acit, Circle -1(1)(2) Oosterdokskade 163, International Taxation, 1011 Dl, Amsterdam, The Civic Centre, Minto Road, Netherlands, New Delhi – 110002 Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcb2395A Appellant .. Respondent

U/s 148A/148/147 have been wrongly initiated. 4. On considering the replies ld. AO passed draft assessment order dated 29.03.2024. The assessee filed objections to the draft assessment order on 26.04.2024 before ld. DRP under Section 144C(5) of the Act. Through, order dated 31.12.2024 DRP-1, New Delhi, rejected objections of the assessee and P a g e | 6 Booking.com

DEEP MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 144C(15) was prospective and not retrospective 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2021 and reopening proceedings u/s 147 only for verification is illegal, invalid and void ab initio and merits quashing 2 Deep Malik 3. That the AO grossly erred in law by not providing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

section 148A. The\n\nrelevant observations of the hon'ble high court as contained in para 29\nto 32 of the order reads as under:\n\n29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3\nas well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched,\nwe find no justification to differ

ATAAT RAHAT KHAN,GURGAON vs. DCIT/ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-29(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. M/S. DISCOVERY SALES, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward 29(1) Vs. M/S Discovery Sales Room No. 1002, E-2 Csc-11, Rbi Colony, Block, Civic Centre, Panchsheel Park Minto Road Delhi – 110016 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacad8701C 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: - **** (xii) the assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material