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

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144C(13) of the Act in pursuance of the directions dated 31 December 2015 issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel -New Delhi (herein referred to as "DRP"). 1. The order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP is bad in law and facts and is liable to be set aside on the grounds

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

2. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on the facts in passing the final order dated 28.06.2022 instead of passing the draft order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C (1) of the Act, which is evident from the fact that the notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act was issued along with said purported draft order

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

Section 144C of the Act on 31.03.2021 in which transfer pricing in adjustment of Rs. 2,19,68,636/- as suggested

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

144C passed by DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vide order dated 20/1/2017. 2. Ground No. 1 to 15 relate to addition of Transfer Pricing Adjustment u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition/disallowance for Model Fee is Rs.172.08 Crore and for royalty is Rs.3.53 crore. During the relevant previous year, the assessee, for the purpose

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-11, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

144C passed by Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi vide order dated 27/10/2017. 2. As regards Ground No. 3 to 3.1, relating to addition of freight inward/import clearing expenses to cost of closing inventory amounting to Rs. 3,17,000, it can be seen that the Assessee purchases raw material on CIF basis and included the freight cost for delivery

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

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

68,86,17,357/- while framing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act.\n11. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment on account of purchase of raw material

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

section 144C(13) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,47,68,23,222/- and Rs. 10,07,81,05,172/- respectively

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

section 144C(13) of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,47,68,23,222/- and Rs. 10,07,81,05,172/- respectively

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, no

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

144C of the Act was passed by the ld. AO on 26.10.2010, which is in appeal before us on several counts. Page 4 of 79 G E Money Financial Services Pvt Limited A Y ITA No 5882/Del/2010 5816/Del/2011 & 6282/Del/2012 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 5. Ground No.1.1 to 1.3 of the appeal are supportive and general in nature

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, no

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

144C of the Act was passed by the ld. AO on 26.10.2010, which is in appeal before us on several counts. Page 4 of 79 G E Money Financial Services Pvt Limited A Y ITA No 5882/Del/2010 5816/Del/2011 & 6282/Del/2012 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 5. Ground No.1.1 to 1.3 of the appeal are supportive and general in nature

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

MAESTRO MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

68 . The Commissioner 9 ITA NO. 3871-72/Del/2018 (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that sufficient opportunity was provided through questionnaires to support his return by documentary evidence and that non issuance of notice under section 143(2) did not invalidate the reassessment. The assessee’s further appeal was allowed by the Tribunal holding that

MAESTRO MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

68 . The Commissioner 9 ITA NO. 3871-72/Del/2018 (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that sufficient opportunity was provided through questionnaires to support his return by documentary evidence and that non issuance of notice under section 143(2) did not invalidate the reassessment. The assessee’s further appeal was allowed by the Tribunal holding that