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

246A so as to exclude the order of assessment passed under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 147 in pursuance of the directions of the “Dispute Resolution Panel” as an appealable order and in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 246 so as to exclude an order passed under section 154 of such order

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

246A so as to exclude the order of assessment passed under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 147 in pursuance of the directions of the “Dispute Resolution Panel” as an appealable order and in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 246 so as to exclude an order passed under section 154 of such order

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

246A so as to exclude the order of assessment passed under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 147 in pursuance of the directions of the “Dispute Resolution Panel” as an appealable order and in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 246 so as to exclude an order passed under section 154 of such order

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

246A so as to exclude the order of assessment passed under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 147 in pursuance of the directions of the “Dispute Resolution Panel” as an appealable order and in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 246 so as to exclude an order passed under section 154 of such order

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made - (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the "Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vvvested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (j) any foreign company. 45.3 Further, consequential amendments have been made — (i) in sub-section (1) of section 131 so as to provide that the "Dispute Resolution Panel” shall have the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure

M/S NORTH SHORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer pricing adjustment Addition as discussed in para 5 : Rs.46,23,444/- Total income : Rs.1,07,92,130/-” Assessed at a total income of Rs. 1,07,92,130/- u/s. 144C read with section 143(3) of the Act Calculate the tax and charge interest u/s 234 A/B/C/D of the Act, as applicable. Penalty proceedings u/s.271

INERGY AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Inergy Automotive Systems Dcit Manufacturing India Pvt. Vs Circle -2(1) Ltd. Sub Plot No. 6 & 7, Gurgaon Maruti Suppliers Park, Plot No.1, Sector-3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon-122050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer price of Rs.1.98 corres for the payment of development cost and the 5% mark up charged by the AE. 8. Having observed as above, the ALP of the international transaction related to the payment of development cost was taken at nil and accordingly income of the assessee as enhanced by Rs.1.98 crores. 9. Assessee strongly objected the adjustment before

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under Section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in Section 271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

246A(1)(d) regarding filing of an appeal against an order made u/s 163 treating the assessee as an agent of a non-resident, it is necessary that a written order must be passed by the taxing authorities for appointing a person to be an agent of a non-resident. Since no such order had been made, the levy

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, 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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, 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

SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4544/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Samsung Heavy Industries India Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Pvt. Ltd., Add: C-28 & 29, Logix Tax, Circle-2, Park, Wing-B, 1St Floor, Sector- Noida-201301 62, Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs9098M Assessee By : Sh. Girish Dave, Adv. & Sh. Arta Trana Panda, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

246A(1)(ba). In view of this the present appeal is not capable of getting adjudicated by me for want of jurisdiction available with me. This position is also clear from the exclusion in section 246(1)(a) where an order passed under sub section 3 of section 143 is appealable before CIT(A) but with the exception