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

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

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

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

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

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

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

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

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

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

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

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

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)

price, which are, further transferred to eligible units at actual cost comprising of procurement cost, processing cost, freight expenses on FIFO [ 1st in 1st out] basis. Therefore, it was stated that assessee has transferred goods at total cost comprising all these cost components. Merely because silver for is also sold by appellant to third-party customers at a price higher

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ("TPO") U/S 92CA(3) DATED 27.01.2021 AND ALSO THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PURPORTEDLY PASSED ON 27.01.2022 WHEREAS THE SAME HAS BEEN SERVED ON DDEPL (AS ALLEGED

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ("TPO") U/S 92CA(3) DATED 27.01.2021 AND ALSO THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PURPORTEDLY PASSED ON 27.01.2022 WHEREAS THE SAME HAS BEEN SERVED ON DDEPL (AS ALLEGED

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

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,11,62,277 to the ALP of the international transaction. 5. Pertinently, a search and seizure

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,11,62,277 to the ALP of the international transaction. 5. Pertinently, a search and seizure

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice