ROLLS-ROYCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT TP 3(2)(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

13) of the Act is liable to be quashed as time barred. The relevant para no. 4 of the order is reproduced as under: “ 4. The draft assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31.03.2021 in which transfer pricing in adjustment of Rs. 2,19,68

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act and titled the order as “Assessment order”. 4. While framing the said order, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment by observing at Para 13 as under: Total Income as per return of income filed 5,68

JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

13) for completion of assessment. 4. In the alternative to ground no. 3, directions issued by Ld. DRP under section 144C(5) have been issued beyond time limit prescribed under section 144C(12). 5. Without prejudice to the above, assessment proceedings which culminated in the Impugned Order are illegal and void in as much as the same

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

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

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

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act as against the income of INR 25,27,45,360/-per the modified return of income filed by the Appellant. In doing so, the Ld. AO has erred in making an adjustment of INR 2,21,26,058/- which comprises of the Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') based adjustment amounting

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)

144C(13) of the Act, thereby rendering the assessment proceedings bad and invalid in law. Specific Grounds on Merits: A. Erroneous adjustment of INR 18,552,925 with respect to international transaction pertaining to Payment of shared service charges, holding fees and ERP fees 4. On the facts and in law, the Revenue erred in rejecting the economic analysis

HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, IT & TP DELHI 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

144C(5) of the Act is dated 26.11.2021 having a DIN Number manually generated which was intimated on 30.11.2021 having System Generated DIN Number. This has also been confirmed through email by the Secretary, DRP which reads as under: “The above referred case came up for hearing before the Hon'ble I- Bench, ITAT Delhi

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

13) of the Act needs to be annulled or quashed on the basis of this ground alone.\n10. 10. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. DRP has erred in law in not entirely deleting the proposed erroneous additions amounting to Rs. 4,68,86,17,357/- while framing order u/s 144C

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

13) read with section 143(3) and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') at Rs.808,53,61,917 as against returned income of Rs.7,68,21,64,860. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the assessing officer under section 144C

HONDA R & D (INDIA) P.LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2018-19 Honda R & D (India) Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1) P. Ltd. New Delhi. Technical Centre, Plot No. 2, Sector-3, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Haryana 122050 Pan Aabch3071N (Appellant) (Respondent)

13) of the Act by the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (herein after referred as “Learned AO”) pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (herein after referred as “Hon’ble DRP”) dated 8.4.2022 and the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (herein after referred as “Learned TPO”) to give effect

MOBASE INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2016- 17 on 16/10/2016, declaring a loss of Rs. 5,23,09,629/-. Since the assessee had International Transactions with its Associated Enterprise, the Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BENETTON INDIA P.LTD, GURGAON

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, for the assessment year ('AY') 2017-18 at INR 13,23,48,799 as against the returned income of NIL under the normal provisions of Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in violating

BENETTON INDIA P.LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 496/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 25B, Block Infocity Vs. Tax, Circle : 4 (2), Sector : 34, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana.Pan:Aaacd1013F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, H. S. Ajmani, Sh. Ankul Goel & Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advs Department By: Shri Mahesh Shah, [Cit] D.R. & Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr

144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, for the assessment year ('AY') 2017-18 at INR 13,23,48,799 as against the returned income of NIL under the normal provisions of Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in violating

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

144C(4)/143(3) of the Act dated 31/01/2018. As against the assessment order dated 31/01/2018 the assessee has preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 24/09/2020 partly allowed on the Appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 24/09/2020 the Department of Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. 6. At the time of hearing

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

144C(4)/143(3) of the Act dated 31/1/2018. As against the assessment order dated 31/01/2018 the assessee has preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 24/09/2020 partly allowed the Appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 24/09/2020 the Department of Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. 8. At the time of hearing