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 on or after

IDEMIA SYSCOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. CIT(TP), DELHI-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include—(i)an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

M.R APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— Amarendra Financial Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

PAWAN KUMAR HUF,DAYANAND NAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORESHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include—(i)an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

SHAMS PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW MERGED WITH ASHVINS AGRI PRODUCTS PVT LTD),NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A

ACTIA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7552/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Actia (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-1, 1, Dakshineshwar, 10, Hailey Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca6944R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) would not mean that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the aid provisions. When a regular assessment is made under Section 143(3), a presumption can be raised that the order has been passed upon an application of mind. In the facts and circumstances of our case, there is no material to indicate

UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act in compliance of the order/directions dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Ld. DRP, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

transfer and the justification of claim u/s 80IC was duly considered as per details of questionnaire and various submissions extracted above. 11. In addition to case laws referred to in our earlier submission, reference may also be made to the following latest decision on the issue of reopening u/s 147: M/s. Swarovski India P. Ltd, v. PCIT (Delhi High Court

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

transfer and the justification of claim u/s 80IC was duly considered as per details of questionnaire and various submissions extracted above. 11. In addition to case laws referred to in our earlier submission, reference may also be made to the following latest decision on the issue of reopening u/s 147: M/s. Swarovski India P. Ltd, v. PCIT (Delhi High Court

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144A,: (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144A,: (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

144A,: (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

M/S DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all, the three appeals are partly allowed

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

price” applied by AO for inter units transfers are not on the statute for these deductions. He contended that provision of section 80 IA (8) which only prescribed Market rate at which the products are transferred. In the end, he submitted that estimate made by AO of attribution of 5% of the profits to the eligible industrial undertaking

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of Act to seek direction of the Additional Commissioner to the ld AO which was issued on 26.12.2006 holding that the above non compete fees paid by the assessee is capital expenditure. The reasons given by ld Additional Commissioner, which is binding on the ld AO, that assessee, acquired all electrical consumable turnovers under the brand name ‗Polstar‘ acquired

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of Act to seek direction of the Additional Commissioner to the ld AO which was issued on 26.12.2006 holding that the above non compete fees paid by the assessee is capital expenditure. The reasons given by ld Additional Commissioner, which is binding on the ld AO, that assessee, acquired all electrical consumable turnovers under the brand name ‗Polstar‘ acquired