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) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

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) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

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) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

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) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263 of the Act would be without jurisdiction [refer, Malabar Industrial (supra), Max India (supra), CIT vs Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (supra)]. Assessment order neither “erroneous” nor “prejudicial to interests of Revenue” 17. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position, it is, at the outset, submitted that the order passed by the AO is “not erroneous”, much less prejudicial

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

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263 of the Act would be without jurisdiction [refer, Malabar Industrial (supra), Max India (supra), CIT vs Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (supra)]. Assessment order neither “erroneous” nor “prejudicial to interests of Revenue” 17. Applying the aforesaid settled legal position, it is, at the outset, submitted that the order passed by the AO is “not erroneous”, much less prejudicial

SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, KANPUR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 1995-96 Sahara India Commercial Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Corporation Ltd. Lucknow (Erstwhile Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd.) Sahara India Sadan 2A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata 700 071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 is bad in law, would depend upon nature of interest that has not been dealt with by Ld.AO in assessment order. He submitted that assessee merely made provision of interest and no interest was credited to respective depositor account it was also submitted that no TDS

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263 Profit & Loss Account 601,918,398 (327,908,047) Amount 193,219,678 (134,688,369) Amount 493,156,047 Add: Add: Add: Add: Add: Depreciation as per Companies Act CSR Expenditure Interest on TDS

SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SURI,NEW DELHI vs. PR CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

section 263 is upheld when the Assessing Officer has accepted the statement of account filed by the Assessee without making any enquiry, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. which held that in the case where Assessing Officer did not make any proper enquiry, the Ld. PCIT is correct in directing

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

TDS has not been deducted on directed the AO to verify. the same amount. Therefore, the same shall After verification, the ld. AO be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). made no addition vide order u/s 143(3)/263 dated 24.02.2014. e. Sundry Creditors and Unsecured Loans have Vide para 8 of the not been confirmed by the AO by issue

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5. During assessment proceedings ld. AO enquired about the object, activity, receipt of fees, TDS its reconciliation with form no 26AS, service tax payments and its nature, details of donors/ contributors etc. There was huge communication by the assessee, which we will come to later on. Therefore, ld. AO held that

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LIMITED

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT v. A.P. Moller Moersk (2017) 392 ITR 186 (SC). 32. On the issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263

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

section 263 of the Act having been initiated by the CIT on a mere ‘change of opinion’ as regards the issue of allowability of depreciation, the impugned order passed pursuant thereto is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 4.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order