MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

115O “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this section (i.e., Sec.115O)” is an indication that the charge under the said section is independent and divorced from the concept of “total income” under the Act. The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

115O “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this section (i.e., Sec.115O)” is an indication that the charge under the said section is independent and divorced from the concept of “total income” under the Act. The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL. RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसुं.6997/म ुं/2019(धन.व. 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai ...... अपीलाथी/Appellant बनाम Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria, Andheri ( East), Mumbai 400 059 ..... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaace-2175-M C.O. No.57/Mum/2019 Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai – 400 059 ...... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ...... प्रधिवादी/Respondent Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai.

115O “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this section (i.e., Sec.115O)” is an indication that the charge under the said section is independent and divorced from the concept of “total income” under the Act. The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uscadence Design System (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-4(2), Plot Nos. 57A, B & C, Noida Delhi Special Economic Zone, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1138Q Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Shri Vibhu Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2024

68,616/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (being 30% of rent expense amounting to Rs. 18,52,28,719/-) and has grossly erred by not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has already deducted tax at the prescribed rate under section 1941 of the Act and deposited the same within prescribed timelines. 2.2 That

HARMANDER SINGH SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 which is Profit & loss Account of M/s HBN\nDairies & Allied Ltd. for the year ended on 31.03.2010 where\nincome of INR 41,71,48,618/- was declared as “miscellaneous\nincome" which according to Ld.AR was the additional income\noffered as a result of search and is not earned from the regular\nbusiness activity of the assessee company and therefore

NOKIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

section 115-0 of the Act while distributing dividends to its shareholders based in Finland. As the said claim has been raised for the first time, it is humbly prayed that the said issue may be remanded back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. Thus, in view of the above, it is humbly prayed before