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

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make

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

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the AO ("AO") under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for assessment year 2015-16 is bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on facts and circumstances

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

1) of the Act, and therefore, the subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble DRP-1 u/s 144C (5) of the Act dated 16.03.2023, as well as the impugned order passed by the Ld, AO u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act dated 27.04.20203, are illegal and void. 2.2 The Hon'ble DRP has also

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANT. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2020-21, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2020-21 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, at the outset, the assessee has raised a pertinent issue questioning the validity of the final assessment order

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

68,561/- on account of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS'), Tax Collected at Source ('TCS') and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') credit (iv) Erroneous application of surcharge at 12% vis-à-vis surcharge rate of 10% (as provided under section 115BAA of the Act); and (v) Non-computation of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B and 234C

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

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 at INR 2,18,76,078/- is bad-in-law and invalid. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, notice issued under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP FRANCE SAS, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

144C(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2 AY: 2011-12 2. Though, the Revenue has raised multiple grounds, however, the solitary issue arising for consideration is, whether the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the amount received by assessee from M/s. Reliance India Ltd. (RIL) as Fees for Technical

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

1) of the Act, void ab initio.\n7. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP have erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act by making erroneous, arbitrary and ad-hoc additions based

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

144C read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law, unsustainable and liable to be quashed 1:1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act ("Reassessment Proceedings) having been initiated on the basis of incorrect

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

144C read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad in law, unsustainable and liable to be quashed 1:1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act ("Reassessment Proceedings) having been initiated on the basis of incorrect

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

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume

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

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume

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

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume

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

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume

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

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume

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

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume

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

144C of the Act is a directive provision and does not affect the section of an assessment order) 9. The assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3)/144C of the Act on 31/03/2023 is void ab initio because no assessment order can be passed u/s 153C of the Act which is only a machinery provision to assume