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

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 the AO had not accepted but verified the same from the investors u/s 133(6) of the IT Act and thereafter framed the assessment order dated 05.04.2016. A list of documents filed before

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

Section 263\nProfit & Loss Account\n493,156,047\nAdd:\nAdd:\nDepreciation as per Companies Act\nCSR Expenditure\n100,742,016\n3,397,000\nAdd:\nInterest on TDS

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Section 263\nProfit & Loss Account\n601,918,398\n(327,908,047)\nAmount\n193,219,678\n(134,688,369)\nAmount\n493,156,047\nAdd:\nAdd:\nAdd:\nAdd:\nAdd:\nDepreciation as per Companies Act\nCSR Expenditure\nInterest on TDS

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

TDS under Section 194C of the Act on payments aggregating to ₹9,20,765/-. According to the PCIT, the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, admitted that it had failed to deduct tax at source under Section 194C on payments aggregating to ₹9,20,765/-, but has not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271C

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT, therefore, they are taken together for consideration. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Real Estate and return of income was filed on 31.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.30,54,04,490/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny for the following reasons

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act and asked the AO to make necessary enquiries and after considering the submissions, to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT-DR concluded that the order to Ld. PCIT being based on full appreciation of facts which were not considered properly by the AO in its final order, therefore, he requested

JAGRITI JOB FINDER PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishram/S Jagriti Job Finder Vs. Pcit (Central) -1 Private Limited, 222, 2Nd New Delhi-110055 Floor Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj5974E Appellant .. Respondent

263 of the Act which cannot be applied at all as submitted by the Ld. A.R. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd. in ITA No. 597 of 2017. Keeping in view the judgment passed

SAMSUNG C & T CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

263 of the Act, the revisionary authority can revise the assessment order, if, he is of the opinion that the order was passed without making inquiry or verification which should have been made. She submitted, while entering into contracts with DMRC, a composite contract has been artificial split to two to derive maximum tax benefit. She submitted, though, the assessee

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, wherein the issue of taxability of interest income of Rs.16,18,16,439/- on FDRs had been decided in favour of the assessee as under: - “3. Interest Income: The issue set aside as per Order u/s 263 Dt. 30/3/2024 was that, the assessee had received interest Income

ASSOTECH MOONSHINE URBAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, wherein the issue of taxability of interest income of Rs.16,18,16,439/- on FDRs had been decided in favour of the assessee as under: - “3. Interest Income: The issue set aside as per Order u/s 263 Dt. 30/3/2024 was that, the assessee had received interest Income

ANKUR GOYAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, wherein the issue of taxability of interest income of Rs.16,18,16,439/- on FDRs had been decided in favour of the assessee as under: - “3. Interest Income: The issue set aside as per Order u/s 263 Dt. 30/3/2024 was that, the assessee had received interest Income

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR, CIT, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

263 and setting aside the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act for reviewing and re-examining the facts, details, documents, evidences already examined by the learned AO, who had already made judgment based on the same and had passed the order of Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.” 5. At the time of hearing

VEENA RANI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. MAHENDER PAL NARANG),FATEHABAD vs. PR,CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Veena Rani, Vs. Principal Commissioner (Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Of Income Tax, Mahender Pal Narang), Rohtak, House No. 221, Ward No. 9, Aayakar Bhawan, Shiv Chowk, Near Op. Mansarover Park, Gurdwara, Faridabad, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Haryana-125050 (Pan: Alzpr5949K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 263 of the Act. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law. 2 1l.That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the observations made in the case of Appellant are unjust, illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, based 'on surmises and conjectures. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual

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

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

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 114 of\nEvidence Act raises presumption that official acts have been\nregularly done. There are no reasons to presume that the\nFAU has not followed the said SOP.\n1.1 As per the SOP, the initial notice_u/s_142(1) was\nrequired to be issued considering 360% information/portal\netc. where all the information including history and other\nnature of business

NIVESH GROUP ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT DELHI-15, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

TDS. It was argued that the issues raised by the ld. PCIT do not pertain to the reasons for selection of case for scrutiny and thus even on the justification of invoking provisions of Section 263

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

263 of the Act was sent to the assessee, and opportunity was given to the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act should not be set aside and a fresh assessment be directed. In 3 the above said notice apart from the issue of professional charges and differences

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

section 263 of the Act is bad in law. Reliance was also place on order of the coordinate bench of this Hon‟ble Tribunal in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] vs. CIT: 86 ITR(T) 530 decision dated 25.01.2021. 25. Specifically referring to the fact that in immediately preceding year