MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). ITA 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 2 of 45 No.110 of 2014 is directed against an order dated 2nd August 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.5237/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2005-06. ITA No.710 of 2015 is an appeal against

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). ITA 2015:DHC:10110-DB ITA Nos.110/2014 & 710/2015 Page 2 of 45 No.110 of 2014 is directed against an order dated 2nd August 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.5237/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2005-06. ITA No.710 of 2015 is an appeal against

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

BAUSCH & LOMB EYECARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The appeals of the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The Assessment Years (‘AYs’) involved are 2006-07 to 2010-11. 2. The Assessee’s appeals, ITA Nos. 643 of 2014, 675 of 2014, 676 of 2014 and 677 of 2014, are directed against the common order dated 23rd May 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

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

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question of law in the other case, as\nand when such order is received, the Principal

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

260A.\n(4) Where the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the\ncase may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the\nfinal decision on the question of law in the other case, as and when\nsuch order is received, the Principal

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

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

260A.\n(4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or]\nthe\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as\nthe case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity\nwith the final decision on the question of law in the other case, as\nand when such order is received, the Principal

HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances no orders as to

260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act') is directed against the impugned order dated 12th December, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.6023/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-2009. 2. Admit. Background facts 3. The facts are that the Assessee, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd 2015:DHC:10493-DB ITA 346/2015 Page

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

260A.\n(4) Where the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the\nCommissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the\ncase may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the\nfinal decision on the question of law in the other case, as and when\nsuch order is received, the Principal

RAMPGREEN SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal, Impugning The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereafter ‘Ao’) Making The Transfer Pricing Adjustments (Hereafter ‘Tp Adjustments’) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Hereafter ‘Ay’) 2008-09 As Finalised By The Transfer Pricing Officer 2015:Dhc:6421-Db

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) impugning the order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No. 6286/Del/2012. The Assessee had preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal, impugning the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter ‘AO’) making the Transfer Pricing

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. STRATEX NET WORKS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

The appeal is dismissed

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is directed against the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in respect of the assessment year 2004-05. The issue sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue relates to the manner in which the profit level indicator has been computed