CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

153(4) of the Act, where a reference\nunder Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

153(1)(a) which stood at two years from the end of the assessment year. Section 92CA with the caption 'Reference to the Transfer Pricing

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

153(1)(a) which stood at two years from the end of the assessment year. Section 92CA with the caption 'Reference to the Transfer Pricing

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

HUAWEI TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed, and the\nstay application is dismissed as being infructuous

section 153, then in many cases (such as not\ninvolving TP reference), the draft assessment order would be required\nto be issued even before end of the relevant assessment year. In many\ncases even involving Transfer Pricing

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of\nthe Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-2, M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacb0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

153(2A) of the Act. d. Without prejudice to the above, the corrigendum issued by AO modifying the final assessment order (under section 254 read with section 143(3) and 1440(13) of the Act) to be read as draft assessment order (under section 144C read with section 254, 143(3) and 1440(13) of the Act) is passed

SHAHNAZ HUSAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

153 of the Act together for\ndetermining limitation for passing the final assessment order, and held:-\n“15. No doubt, section 144C is a self contained code of assessment and time limits are\ninbuilt each stage of the procedure contemplated. Section 144C envisions a special\nassessment, one which includes the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of\ninternational transactions engaged

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) of the Act passed.\nDraft assessment order under section 144C of the Act passed.\nLimitation for passing the final assessment order expired on\n30.09.2021 i.e. 30 months (18 months+ 12 months) from April 01, 2019\nin view of section 153

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Circle-13(1) Business Center, Gurgaon C.R. Building, Delhi Road, South West Delhi- 110037. Pan-Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sumit Mangal, Adv. Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 23.10.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Bench Has Asked The Assessee To File Specific Ground Of Appeal No.2 As Against General Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Taken. In Compliance, Assessee Vide Application Dt. 12.03.2025 Filed Under Rule 11 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal Under. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Taken Reads As Under: Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

AIRBNB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, DELHI, DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb India Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Caddie Commercial Central Revenue Building, Tower, Aerocity, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aakca5525B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ao Dated 24.07.2024 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Subsequent To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Direction Dated 27.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/07/2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

AIRBNB PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURUGRAM, HARYANA, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb Payments India Private Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Gurugram, Haryana. Level 9, Spaze I Tech Park, Vs A1 Tower, Sector-49, . Sohna Road, Gurugram-122018 Haryana. Pan-Aanca6203B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ao Dated 18.07.2024 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Subsequent To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Direction Dated 24.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 18/07/2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Relying On Airbnb Payments India Private Limited Vs. Dcit The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 Itr 537 (Madras) & Also Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

section 153, then in many cases (such as not involving TP reference), the draft assessment order would be required to be issued even before end of the relevant assessment year. In many cases even involving Transfer Pricing

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153 of the Act. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,16,476/- incurred by the appellant for obtaining licenses for use of accounting software were capital in nature without appreciating that acquisition of same is merely enhancement and up gradation of accounting software already

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153 of the Act. 2. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,16,476/- incurred by the appellant for obtaining licenses for use of accounting software were capital in nature without appreciating that acquisition of same is merely enhancement and up gradation of accounting software already

ITRON INDIA P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalitron India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Flat No. 507, Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Bhikajicamabhawan, C. R. Building, New Delhi Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs6575L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh.Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

MANLIFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

153(4) of the Act, where a\nreference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing

LS CABLE INDIA P.LTD.,REWARI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

153(4) of the Act, where a reference under Section 92CA of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing