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

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. 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

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

68,38,810 uls 139 of the IT Act on 30.03.2021 61,83,77,505/- Deemed total income under MAT All adjustment made in earlier assessments NIL reassessments (uls 143(3),147, 153A, 153C rectificationl appellate orderl revisions etc. Add: Addition as per recommendation of TPO uls 11,27,15,4101- 92CA -" Add: Addition as per issue

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

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

68,636/- as suggested by the Id TPO was added to the total income. The assessee filed its objection before the Id DRP. The Id DRP issued direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 16.09.2021 upholding the draft assessment order. The said DRP order was intimated to the Id AO on 22.09.2021. There is absolutely no dispute with regard

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

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

68,064/- by applying provisions of section 80IA(8) read with 80IB(13) and 80IC(7) of the Act on the ground that the eligible undertakings should have paid royalty to Head Office for using the brand ‘Rajnigandha’, allegedly owned by the Head Office;. (ii). That the Ld. Assessing officer was not justified in holding that brand ‘Rajnigandha

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

section 144C(8) and therefore invalid. Grounds relating to transfer pricing issues 7. Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have erred in making an addition of 369,62,68

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)

68,496/- instead of INR 1,69,80,644- 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred while computing the tax liability for relevant AY by not allowing deduction on account of Section 80G amounting to INR 15,14,475/- already claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income. Interest and Penalty Grounds

RAVI KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

8 of section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1 Ravi Kumar 2. That the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in law in holding that it had no power to decide the issue of validity/maintainability of the issue of notice u/s 148. 3. That the notice issued u/s 148 is bed in law as the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MOET HENNESSY (I) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

144C (8), DRP does not have power to set aside any proposed variation or issue for further enquiry to the AO”. 16. So, we are of the considered view that disallowance made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the Act pursuant to the directions issued by the DRP is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So, question framed

MOET HENNESSY INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

144C (8), DRP does not have power to set aside any proposed variation or issue for further enquiry to the AO”. 16. So, we are of the considered view that disallowance made by the AO u/s 37(1) of the Act pursuant to the directions issued by the DRP is not sustainable in the eyes of law. So, question framed

K.R.PULP AND PAPERS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144C of the Act.\n2. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred both in law and on facts in\ndisallowing the claim of deduction of Rs.16,40,46,786/- u/s\n80IA(4)(iv) of the Act by holding that an adjustment of Rs.\n84,32,16,460/- is warranted in respect of transfer of power and steam\nfrom eligible units

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

8. Levy of Interest U/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act 1961 The AO/DRP/National e-Assessment Center New Delhi erred in charging of interest under the provision of section 234B, 234C & 234D of the Income Tax Act in their order. 9. The Assessing officer erred in proposing to initiate the penalty proceedings under section

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 893/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Jindal Centre, 12, Bhikaji Cama Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Place, New Delhi-110066 Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7079D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv., Sh. Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Pallavi Saigal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-14

144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), is illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the impugned assessment at an income of Rs. 1322,13,35,445 against income of Rs. 2 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. 1006,66,79,810 declared by the appellant in the return