ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassess the case u/s 148, in the name of a dissolved entity. AO passed draft orders under section 147 r.w.s. 144C, proposing Draft additions: • AY 2015–16: ₹ 456.24 1 121-128 26.08.2022 Assessment cr (NCD investment + interest) • AY 3 47-58 Orders 2017–18: ₹ 138.45 cr (interest treated as undisclosed business income). Petitioner filed objections before Objections filed

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassess the case u/s 148, in the name of a dissolved entity. AO passed draft orders under section 147 r.w.s. 144C, proposing Draft additions: • AY 2015–16: ₹ 456.24 1 121-128 26.08.2022 Assessment cr (NCD investment + interest) • AY 3 47-58 Orders 2017–18: ₹ 138.45 cr (interest treated as undisclosed business income). Petitioner filed objections before Objections filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. xxxx 80-A. Deductions to be made in computing total income.—(1) In computing the total income

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.

35A within 30 days of receipt of the draft order. in compliance with Section 144C(2) of the Act. 5 Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel were 28.06.2024 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 6 Final Assessment Order passed under Section 26.07.2024 143(3) r.w.s144C(13) of the Act. 21. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras

COIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalcoim India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Shop No. 4, Ground Floor Income Tax, Income Tax Rajendrabhawan, Patel Nagar, Department, Circle 4(2), East Central Delhi, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabcy0901A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

35A within 30 days of receipt of the draft order. in compliance with Section 144C(2) of the Act. 5 5. Directions of the Dispute Resolution 11.6.2024 Panel were passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 6 Date of Final Assessment Order 30.7.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

35A within 30 days of receipt of\nthe draft order in compliance with S 144C(2)\nof the Act.\n6\nDirections of the DRP were passed u/s 30.06.2024\n144C(5) of the Act\nFinal assessment order passed u/s 143(3) 30.07.2024\nr.w.s144C(13) of the Act.\n8. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca Bathroom

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1), , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljohnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Luthra & Luthra Law Income Tax, Circle 13(2) Office India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Spm Civic Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Johnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Appeal 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Business Centre, Income Tax Center, Gurgaon, Road, South Department West Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv& Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

35A within 30 days of receipt of the draft order in compliance with S 144C(2) of the Act. 5 Directions of the DRP were passed u/s 30.06.2024 144C(5) of the Act 6 Final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) 30.07.2024 r.w.s144C(13) of the Act. 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca

HCL (BRAZIL) TECHNOLOGIES DA INFORMACAO EIRELI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL MEXICO S. DE R L,MEXICO vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BV,NETHERLANDS vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES BELGIUM BVBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves

HCL TECHNOLOGIES GERMANY GMBH,GERMANY vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 25. Even if it has to be assumed that the payment made by HCLT for onsite services rendered by the assessee is to be construed as FTS, in any event, we find that Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act carves