UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

capital gains as declared by the assessee. Without making any deliberation on the merit of this action of the AO, we are of the view that decision taken by the AO cannot be held as unsustainable or not in accordance with law. 30. From operative part of the impugned order, we note that the CIT has remitted all three issues

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain computed by the assessee, the tax aggregates to Rs. 18,73,211/-. This tax had been computed only for the purposes of calculation, despite the fact no tax was payable due to set-off against brought forward capital loss). Against the draft order of assessment, the assessee had filed its objections’ on 27.04.2016 u/s 144C

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision u/s 263 can take place qua assessment order passed in faceless mode u/s 144B of the Act as per very scheme of the 1961 Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,08,630/-and income from the sale of share

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

u/s 144C of the Act. Vide letter dated 17.03.2021, the assessees informed the AO that they were not willing to approach the Dispute Resolution Panel and reserved the right to appeal before CIT(A) against the final assessment orders. Accordingly, final assessment orders were passed. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessees filed appeals before

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:-

u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' it is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer

MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimanisha Juneja Sawhney, Vs. The Cit, W-31, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi International Taxation-3, Pan: Bjgps5452N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

revised under section 263 of income tax act. It was further stated that issue of capital gain arising to assessee under collaboration agreement has already been subject matter of appeal and assessment order having merged with order of learned CIT – A , proposed action under section 263 of income tax act is not permissible. The learned CIT further issued a supplementary

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

revision jurisdiction on this issue u/s 263 of the Act is quashed.” 22. In view of the above findings and also looking to the fact that necessary enquiry was made by AO and duly replied by the assessee before the AO as well as before Ld. PCIT. Thus, it is clearly established that the AO has applied his mind before

MIKADO REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

revised u/s 263 of the Act. 8. That learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred both in law and on facts in further holding that the “the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee for the Assessment year 2017-18 by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ZILE SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyzile Singh, Vs. Pr. Cit, H. No. 263, Sector-8, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana Pan: Ajeps1883J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 263 of the Act no such evidence were produced. He further held that the assessment lacked the necessary enquiries on the genuineness of the capital gain exempt and therefore, the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous, as it had resulted into escapement of income, therefore, it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thereafter, citing several judicial

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

u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' it is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' it is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' it is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' it is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer

LATE SMT. GIRIRAJ KAUR L/H SRI RAVINDER GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains. As assessee has also claimed deduction of expenditure of Rs. 246000/- for improvement of the asset for which no details were produced, the ld AO did not allow 50% of such cost of improvement expenditure. The assessment was passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 20.03.2015 determining total income of the assessee

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

revised consideration for VEL shares was\nagreed by the Assessee.\n9. Accordingly, the Assessee sold all the shares it held in VEL to Euro\nPacific Securities Limited (‘EPSL’) (a non-resident company nominated\nby Vodafone International Holdings B.V) for total consideration of USD\n3,02,05,21,511. The gross consideration was received by the Assessee\nafter deduction

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

revision u/s 263 of the Act. (v) That claim of the assessee that compensation received of Rs.91.33 crore by the assessee during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017- 18 forms part of sale consideration for computation of long-term capital gain

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

revision u/s 263 of the Act. (v) That claim of the assessee that compensation received of Rs.91.33 crore by the assessee during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017- 18 forms part of sale consideration for computation of long-term capital gain

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

revision u/s 263 of the Act. (v) That claim of the assessee that compensation received of Rs.91.33 crore by the assessee during the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017- 18 forms part of sale consideration for computation of long-term capital gain