TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed in the above terms, but with no orders as to costs

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 92CA (1) of the Act and referred the case to the transfer pricing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. BOEING INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed an order under Section 92CA dated 31.10.2019 which was also issued in the correct name i.e., in the name of BIPL. d) The draft assessment order as passed under Section 144C(1) of the Act as on 21.12.2019 mentioned the names of the amalgamated as well as the amalgamating entity i.e., BICIPL. e) According

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

143(3)\n715,27,29,060/-\nRelief allowed u/s 154\n418,66,34,625/-\nRevised total income u/s 154/143(3)\n296,60,94,435/-\n06. Issue necessary forms.\"\nThis section 154 rectification has admittedly attained finality as\non date.\n5.\nWe now come to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC lower appellate\nproceedings. The assessee appears to have apprised him about

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

Pricing - ED071553767IN 12.04.2022 2(2)(2), Delhi 4. Further, it is informed that the above said direction was not sent through e mail. SAURABH SHARMA DCIT(DRP-2), Delhi (Sec)” 8. Based on this it was argued by the ld AR that when the ld DRP‟s directions got uploaded in ITBA portal way back on 07.04.2022 itself

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

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)

transferred to various units including the units eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of the act based upon the sales ratio of all manufacturing units. 4. During assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 assessment orders were passed under the provisions of Section 153A/143 (3) of the act based upon search and seizure operations carried out under the provisions

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Shri D.C.Gupta, Sr. Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the company appeared and filed details. 4. The assessee had international transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores with its associated enterprises. Hence the case was referred to the Transfer Pricing

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble DRP while issuing directions under section 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 Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - I (2

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

143(3) of the Act. The assessing officer has determined the total income at Rs 25682162/- by making the addition of Rs 2,39,47720/-. 4. Aggrieved the order of the assessing officer the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who vide his order dated 27-03-2023 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) after considering the adjustments proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 2(3)(2) (“TPO”) in his order passed under Section

ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes subject to the directions contained in para 11, 18 and 19 above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

143(2) notice can only be transferred to jurisdictional AO by following prescription under section 144B(8). Further section 1448 details functions of Assessment Unit, Technical unit, Verification Unit and Review Unit (section 1448(3)]. Section 130 facilitates concurrent jurisdiction for faceless assessment officers. Careful consideration of section 1448 would show that there is no provision for Technical Unit

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

section 143 (1) of the Act on 01.10.2019 at an income of Rs.11,02,48,570/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the reasons of selection for case were (i) substantial increase in share capital in a year; and (ii) large value of international transactions in the nature of guarantee. The statutory notices u/s 143(2

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the Act, assessed the income of assessee at Rs.33,80,48118 after making an addition of Rs.1,17,527/- being interest from saving bank account jointly held by assessee and his father. Ld. AO assessed compensation of Rs.33,12,18,930/- received from Cinepolis Group as income under the head “profit and gain of business and profession