M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 131 of the Act. The following table depicts the details of statements taken and relied upon by revenue- Name Section PB-II Reference AO M.B.Shin 133A 660 p.21 YashovardhanVerma 133A 665 H.C.Moon 133A 671 Jae Gyu Cho 133A 677 Woody Nam 133A 680 p.20,22,24,29,33 H.D.Rew 133A 693 H.D.Rew 131 696 p.21,39 Soonkwang

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

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:

147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted the DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I

The appeal is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(e) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately. ITA No.578/12 Page 5 of 22 (P. K. Sharma) Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(1), New Delhi. Copy to the Assessee. Sd/- ACTT, Circle 3(1), New Delhi.” 4. It would be apparent from the above computation of the total income that no addition had been

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)

92C of the Act 4 read with Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules. The TP order dated 27 July 2021 ought to be quashed. 6. On the facts and in law, the Ld. TPO exceeded its jurisdiction by applying the cost benefit analysis in determining the ALP of intra group charges and also erred in not following the binding

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

reassessment proceedings, claim was reduced by the Assessing Officer. 55. Similar fate was in Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The said assessments were completed u/s 153A of the Act. Assessment orders for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07 were quashed by the Tribunal as the same were based de hors any incriminating material. 56. However, in Assessment

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)

92C(3) of the Act are satisfied in Appellant's case, before disregarding the arm's length price determined by the Appellant. The AO/ DRP have further erred in upholding the action of the TPO. 3.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in not appreciating the functional

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 368 2,414.421 7 In fact in the case of J4 Black coil, it would be noted that the appellant has sold 45205.790 MT to the associated enterprise, whereas, the total quantity of J4 Black Coil sold to unrelated third parties is merely 2234.400 MT, constituting only 4.7% of the total sales. Accordingly, in a situation where the manufacturing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 368 2,414.421 7 In fact in the case of J4 Black coil, it would be noted that the appellant has sold 45205.790 MT to the associated enterprise, whereas, the total quantity of J4 Black Coil sold to unrelated third parties is merely 2234.400 MT, constituting only 4.7% of the total sales. Accordingly, in a situation where the manufacturing

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

92C of the Act and under the Indian Transfer Pricing regulations all the methods stand on equal footing.\n\n(d) The transaction of export of glass is closely linked with the overall operations of the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee was the first company to set up the float glass plant in India. Until that time float

M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

reassessment. In our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also equivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for example, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the intimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant times. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Jindal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD.,, NEW DELHI

147 of the Act\n30.03.2005\nDate of Supreme Court order in the case of\nCIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd: 306\nITR 392\n16.09.2008\nDate of application filed before CIT(A) raising\nadditional ground of appeal qua treatment of\nsales/ purchase tax subsidy as capital receipts\n05.11.2008\n\n26.1 Perusal of the above chart would show that the assessee