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)

144C of the Act and therefore, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. vs. ITO 3. That the AO/ TPO/ DRP erred on facts and in law in making an adjustment of Rs.105,07,00,000 to the arm's length price of 'international transactions' of sale of APIs and formulations, undertaken by the Appellant with

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

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 of Rs. 3

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

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

3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31.03.2021 in which transfer pricing in adjustment of Rs. 2,19,68

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

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

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 are in breach of section 153 of the Act. 6. Without prejudice

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant's objections to the proposed adjustments, and merely relied on the reasoning given by the Ld. TPO in his order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act and by the Ld. AO in his draft assessment order. On the facts and in the circumstances

JAS FORWARDING WORLDWIDE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

144C(5) of the Act did not consider the facts and merits of Appellant's objections to the proposed adjustments, and merely relied on the reasoning given by the Ld. TPO in his order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act and by the Ld. AO in his draft assessment order. On the facts and in the circumstances

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEMASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is wrong and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP grossly erred in treating the amount derived by the Appellant on account of distribution revenue from Turner International India Private Limited

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. vs. ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

144C of the Act with the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter ‘the DRP’). The Assessee’s objections were founded on four grounds. 19.1 First, that the AO had erred in facts and in law in holding that the Assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the DTAA. 19.2 Second, that

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

144C of the Act with the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter ‘the DRP’). The Assessee’s objections were founded on four grounds. 19.1 First, that the AO had erred in facts and in law in holding that the Assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the DTAA. 19.2 Second, that

HYATT INTERNATIONAL-SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

144C of the Act with the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereafter ‘the DRP’). The Assessee’s objections were founded on four grounds. 19.1 First, that the AO had erred in facts and in law in holding that the Assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the DTAA. 19.2 Second, that