TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

reassessment order passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3()O), International Taxation, New Delhi (Ld. AO') under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, New Delhi (Ld. DRP'), assessing the income of the Appellant

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed by the Ld. Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3()O), International Taxation,\nNew Delhi (Ld. AO') under section 147 read with section\n144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in pursuance to\nthe directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, New\nDelhi (Ld. DRP'), assessing the income of the Appellant

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid disallowance without appreciating that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only in case of payments made to residents. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 10. That on the facts

MOL CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ADDL. DIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as‘ The Act‘] pursuant to direction dated 24/09/2012 under section 144C (13) of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred to as ―DRP‘] raising following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6089/Del/2012 which are as under:- “1. That on facts and in law, while passing the assessment order, the Additional Director

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

1) of the Act. 6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 made under section 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act has been annulled because no incrementing material was found during search, hence, there was fundamental lack of jurisdiction

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

1) of the Act. 6. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 made under section 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act has been annulled because no incrementing material was found during search, hence, there was fundamental lack of jurisdiction

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

147 of the Act are without jurisdiction 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedingsundertaken by the assessing officer culminating in final assessment order are without jurisdiction, void ab initio and bad in law. 3.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in passing final assessment order without appreciating

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

147 of the Act are without jurisdiction 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedingsundertaken by the assessing officer culminating in final assessment order are without jurisdiction, void ab initio and bad in law. 3.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in passing final assessment order without appreciating

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

147 of the Act are without jurisdiction 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedingsundertaken by the assessing officer culminating in final assessment order are without jurisdiction, void ab initio and bad in law. 3.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in passing final assessment order without appreciating

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

147 read with section 148 of the Act, which was applicable to searches conducted after 01.04.2021. In view of the same, a notice under section 148 for the year under consideration was issued on 20.01.2023 for assessment year 2012-13. The AO computed limitation for issuing notices under section 148 for the aforesaid assessment year as per the new provision

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

Section 40(a)(i), inserted vide Finance Act, 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.89, payment in respect of royalty, fees technical services or other sums chargeable under the Income Tax Act would not get the benefit of deduction if the assessee fails to deduct TAS in respect of payments outside India which are chargeable under the IT. Act. This provision ensures effective compliance

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

VI. BOGUS SHARE TRANSACTIONS a. “The shares were never purchased in the year 2009-10 or any earlier year as claimed. The contract notes furnished are fabricated and bogus. The shares are received in the demat account of the beneficiary by way of off market transfer from conduit accounts. In the conduit account, shares were received from another conduit account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

VI. BOGUS SHARE TRANSACTIONS a. “The shares were never purchased in the year 2009-10 or any earlier year as claimed. The contract notes furnished are fabricated and bogus. The shares are received in the demat account of the beneficiary by way of off market transfer from conduit accounts. In the conduit account, shares were received from another conduit account

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

9\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\ntotaling Rs.17,03,974/- was though deducted but not deposited. Due to which\ncredit was not allowed while computing the tax.”\n8.\nThe ld. DR has primarily relied the decision of Bangalore Bench in\nAreca Trust, ITA No. 433/Bang/2023 dated 26.07.2023 to contend that\nwhen no separate addition

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

vi) of\nExplanation 2 to Section 148, except with the prior approval of the specified higher\nauthority. The relevant statutory provisions reads as under:\n“Prior approval for assessment, reassessment or recomputation in certain\ncases.\n148B. No order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under\nthis Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint\nCommissioner

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

147 and for the remaining two\nyears i.e., Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 assessment orders were passed\nu/s 143(3) of the Act. By Finance Act 2021, section 148 has been amended and as\nper the new section limitation were provided in section 149 where section 149(1) (b)\nfirst proviso provided as under:\n“Provided that

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

vi) no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which just authorizes an AO to assume jurisdiction to pass an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act and not to pass any assessment order therein; (vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

vi) no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which just authorizes an AO to assume jurisdiction to pass an assessment order u/s 153A of the Act and not to pass any assessment order therein; (vii) the section 153C of the Act is nowhere mentioned in the section 246A of the Act against which an appeal