MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

TDS and the value of perquisites in terms of section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act. during the period 1/472003 to 31/3/2008 in the case of each employee who was provided with the perquisite of annual vacation abroad for self and family.” 19. Simultaneously, information u/s 133(6) of the Act was called from the following parties : a). From

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

revision under section 263 of the Act. 17. In this regard, it is submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income tax has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 as the assessment was framed and accepted by the Ld.AO after having examined the documents furnished. The assessee had filed the relevant documents based on which

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order dated 31

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

TDS provisions u/s 194 r.w.s 40 (a) (ia) of I.T. Act in respect of lease rentals, security expenses, satellite call center expenses and advertising expenses. III. Examination of arms length nature of the transactions undertaken by the assessee with group concerns. (C.1) As far as the first issue is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that this issue

M/S MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS. Against this order the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. It was the contention of the ld AR that at the initial stage the AO has made complete enquiry and therefore it is not the case of lack of enquiry and on this ground the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable. Further

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Act, the entire assessment was open for scrutiny. 9. Without prejudice, that on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) despite specifically recording the issue of netting off raised by the Appellant, i.e., reducing Rs. 140,67,55,306, being the provision under the same head in the prior year from

MS. BEENA JAIN,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

revision proceedings u/s 263. The assessee had duly explained the identity/genuineness/creditworthiness of all the unsecured loans received during the year and had fully discharged the onus as required u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT has made addition u/s 68 for total loans outstanding as on 31.03.2008 which includes loan of Rs. 21,91,271/- taken by the assessee

DIPANKAR MOHAN GHOSH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(2) INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS credit of Rs. Page 8 of 10 ITA No.277 & 531/Del/2021 Dipankar Mohan Ghosh vs. CIT 5,15,63,077/- was already considered and decided by the Ld. CIT(A) by his order dated 08.05.2019. Hence, for adjudication of very same issue, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke revision proceedings u/s 263

DIPANKAR MOHAN GHOSH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS credit of Rs. Page 8 of 10 ITA No.277 & 531/Del/2021 Dipankar Mohan Ghosh vs. CIT 5,15,63,077/- was already considered and decided by the Ld. CIT(A) by his order dated 08.05.2019. Hence, for adjudication of very same issue, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke revision proceedings u/s 263

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

revising your total\nincome of Rs.6,20,42,83,460/-. Your case was further selected for \"Complete\nScrutiny\" through CASS. Subsequently, assessment in your case was completed on\n25.08.2022 under Section 143(3) rws 144B of the Act at assessed income of Rs.\n6,20,42,83,460/-.\n3.\nOn perusal of your balance sheet of column

SARENA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, DELHI-3, DELHI

Accordingly decided in favour of the assessee.\n\n13.\nConsequently the appeals succeed and same are allowed

revision proceedings. Therefore, as per law, the validity of the order\npassed in the primary (original) proceedings should be allowed to be examined even at the\nsubsequent stages, only for the limited purpose of examining whether the collateral\n(subsequent) proceedings have been initiated on a valid legal platform or not and for\nexamining the validity of assumption of jurisdiction

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS), Karnal and relied upon the order of the AO and stated that Section 194J of the Act is not applicable in the present case. He further draw our attention towards page no. 47 of the PB which is a copy of notice of proposal for revision u/s. 263