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

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

Section 153 (2A) or 153 (3) is\napplicable, when the matters are remanded back irrespective\nof whether it is to the Assessing Officer or TPO or the DRP,\nthe duty is on the assessing officer to pass orders.\n(b) Even in case of remand, the TPO or the DRP have to follow\nthe time limits as provided under

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

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

pricing order under section 92CA(3) of the Act passed.\n22.09.2023\nDraft assessment order under section 144C of the Act passed.\n30.09.2023\nLimitation for passing the final assessment order expired on\n30.09.2023 i.e. 30 months (18 months+ 12 months) from April 01, 2021\nin view of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act.\nRefer ground number

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

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B is beyond the upper time limit\nprovided under Section 153(1) and Section 153(4) of the Act, then the said order\nis beyond the limitation prescribed and liable to be quashed. In the present\ncase, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the normal time limit\navailable for passing

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: 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.

3 As per Section 153(1) of the Act, the limitation 30.09.2023 period for completion of assessment for an assessment year commencing on or after 01.04.2020 is 18 months from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e., 30.09.2022. Since, reference was made to the Transfer Pricing

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

pricing order under section 92CA(3) of the Act passed.\n22.09.2023\nDraft assessment order under section 144C of the Act passed.\n30.09.2023\nLimitation for passing the final assessment order expired on\n30.09.2023 i.e. 30 months (18 months+ 12 months) from April 01, 2021\nin view of section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act.\nRefer ground number

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) r.w. Section 144C(13) on 04/06/2024, which is beyond the\nstatutory limitation prescribed u/s 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act.\nThus submitted that, the impugned Final assessment order is barred by\nlimitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144Cof the Act, void ab initio\nand liable to be quashed.\n7.\nFor the sake of ready reference, date Chart

LINTEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SOUTH DELHI, DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), OFFICE OF DCIT, CR BUILDING, DELHI,

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwallintec India Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 14Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Nehru Place, South Delhi, Delhi Office Of The Dcit, C. R. 110019, Building, Delhi Pan: Aaccl23772F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

Section 153 153 of the of the Act Act 1 Date of passing of the transfer July 30, July 31, Yes pricing order u/s 92CA(3

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

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B is beyond the upper time limit provided under Section 153(1) and Section 153(4) of the Act, then the said order is beyond the limitation prescribed and liable to be quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the normal time limit available for passing

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

Transfer pricing order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act 05.05.2021 : Draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act passed. 15.02.2022 : DRP directions u/s 144C(15) of the Act issued. 31.12.2020 : Limitation for passing the final assessment order -33 months (21 months + 12 Months) from March 2018 in view of section 153

PERFETTI VAN MELLE INDIA PVT LT.D,GURGOAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B is beyond the upper time limit provided under Section 153(1) and Section 153(4) of the Act, then the said order is beyond the limitation prescribed and liable to be quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the normal time limit available for passing

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 r.w. Section 144Cof the Act, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 7. For the sake of ready reference, date Chart filed by the Assessee is reproduced as under: Assessment Year: 2020-21 Relevant Dates : Proceedings 28.07.2023 : Transfer Pricing order u/s 92CA(3

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 r.w. Section 144Cof the Act, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 7. For the sake of ready reference, date Chart filed by the Assessee is reproduced as under: Assessment Year: 2020-21 Relevant Dates : Proceedings 30.07.2023 : Transfer Pricing order u/s 92CA(3

(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

ITRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NOIDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalitron India Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner C-7, Sector-3, Noida Gautam Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aabcs6575L New Delhi 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 21/01/2026

Transfer Pricing order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. 22.09.2023 : Draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act passed. 30.09.2023 : Limitation for passing the final assessment order=30 month (18 months + 12 months) from March 2021 in view of Section 153

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 (2A) or 153 (3) is\napplicable, when the matters are remanded back irrespective\nof whether it is to the Assessing Officer or TPO or the DRP,\nthe duty is on the assessing officer to pass orders.\n(b) Even in case of remand, the TPO or the DRP have to follow\nthe time limits as provided under

AT AND T COMMUNICATION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), OFFICE OF ACIT, CR BUILDING, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) r.w.s.\n144C(13) r.w.s. 144B is beyond the upper time limit provided under Section 153(1)\nand Section 153(4) of the Act, then the said order is beyond the limitation\nprescribed and liable to be quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute with\nregard to the fact that the normal time limit available for passing

VALVOLINE CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) r.w.s.\n144C(13) r.w.s. 144B is beyond the upper time limit provided under Section 153(1)\nand Section 153(4) of the Act, then the said order is beyond the limitation\nprescribed and liable to be quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute with\nregard to the fact that the normal time limit available for passing