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

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

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

263 of the Act would be without jurisdiction [refer, Malabar Industrial (supra), Max India (supra), CIT vs Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (supra)].\nAssessment order neither “erroneous” nor “prejudicial to interests of Revenue”\n17. 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

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS certificates\nissued for FY 16-17 on sample basis, are enclosed as Enclosure-IV.\nThus, our submission is that, the entire collection expenditure, including provision\nmade for the purpose of business and services rendered by collection vendors\nduring the year 2016-17. is allowable as business expenditure to the assessee.\nTherefore, the question disallowance or making any addition

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

2 assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since:- 2.1 the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have merely been initiated on the basis of the letter received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

2 assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since:- 2.1 the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have merely been initiated on the basis of the letter received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

2 assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since:- 2.1 the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have merely been initiated on the basis of the letter received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

2 assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since:- 2.1 the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have merely been initiated on the basis of the letter received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

2 assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since:- 2.1 the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have merely been initiated on the basis of the letter received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS

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

2 assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since:- 2.1 the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have merely been initiated on the basis of the letter received from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (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

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

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

2) (1998) 230 ITR 820 (Del). On the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being subjected to 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 DELHI IV vs. INTERNATIONAL TRACTORS LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

2) (1998) 230 ITR 820 (Del). On the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being subjected to 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

2) (1998) 230 ITR 820 (Del). On the issue of reimbursement of expenses not being subjected to 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

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

TDS) @ 10 per cent only on amount of Rs.13,43,02,195/- which is the interest portion and the remaining amount of Rs.3,85,10,725 being enhanced value and solatium not been considered for deduction of tax at source. Hence it is clear that the authority has not considered the entire amount as enhanced value of compensation attributable

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

2 as no enquiries or verification has been conducted which should have been made by the Assessing Officer. (c) Merely because the CIT may not agree to the order of the Assessing Officer just due to change of opinion, the said orders cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue : This is not a case

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 145(2) vide Notice u/s. 142(1), dated 28.12.2021 [P.B. Page No. 104]. B. Reply submitted by assessee-company:- (i) Reply dated 02.02.2022 having reply of query on ICDS and AS-7/Section 145(2) [P.B. Page No. 127]. (ii) Reply dated 03.08.2022 having reply of query on ICDS/Section 145(2) (P.B. Page No. 196 & 208). C. Issue

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)

2% from the 1applicable rate of interest on that stage. 6.1. He submitted that working of interest provision made in GFDA scheme are on quarterly compounding basis and that interest at the rate of 12% per annum has only to be provided which is minimum amount of interest payable under the scheme. Ld.Counsel submitted that observations made