MMTC LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1),

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hold that he had given unwarranted and illegal direction to the ld AO to make fishing and roving enquiry which is not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. 14. Depreciation

CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and hold that he had given unwarranted and illegal direction to the ld AO to make fishing and roving enquiry which is not permissible u/s 263 of the Act. 14. Depreciation

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

depreciation. (E.4) As far as reasonable opportunity of being heard during proceedings u/s 263 of IT Act is concerned, we find that notice u/s 263 of IT Act was issued on 16.03.2016. The assessee submitted written submissions vide letter dated 29.03.2016 (pages 109 to 121) of Paper Book filed during appellate proceedings before ITAT and supplementary submission dated 30.03.2016 were

M/S HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation. vi. He further referred to the amendment made by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 wherein explanation 2 to section 263 was introduced. He submitted that it is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore applies to the impugned order. Hero Honda Motors Ltd V DCIT 2148/del/2009 A Y 2004-05 Appeal Against Order u/s 263 of The ACT Page

SH. BRAHAM DEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision can be exercised only where no inquiry as required under the law is done. It is not open to enquiry in cases of inadequate inquiry.” 24 Assessment year: 2011-12 v) CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 “The provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

263 in the present case). Right to appeal was vested in the appellant when proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were initiated. The appeal was validly filed by the appellant under section 246A of the Act. Being so, the same could not have been dismissed as infructuous. He submitted that the two fundamental grievances of the appellant, viz. validity

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

revised must be erroneous and at the same time prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Unless, these twin conditions are satisfied, s. 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. In the facts of the present case, learned Principal CIT has put much emphasis on Expln. 2 to s. 263 of the Act. In our view, Expln. 2 to s. 263

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

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

depreciation claimed u/s 32 of the Act due to\nsome clerical oversight. There is a continuous improvement\nin the scales of the business of the assessee year on year\nbasis. This may be verified on the income-tax portal of the\nassessee.\n6 It is also on record that the assessee is engaged in the\nbusiness of processing and marketing

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income Tax Officer is eiToneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to section 263

A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

revised is neither erroneous and nor is it prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2. The order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act accepting a method of accounting which the assessee was required to adopt as per the mandate of section 145 of the Act read with section 211 (3A) of the Companies Act could

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 10 B. 10. It is relevant to note that the assessee has also alleged invocation of section 263 of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the same manner as has been done for assessment year 2009-10 and grounds in all three appeals are almost similar, therefore, we are adjudicating them together

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 10 B. 10. It is relevant to note that the assessee has also alleged invocation of section 263 of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the same manner as has been done for assessment year 2009-10 and grounds in all three appeals are almost similar, therefore, we are adjudicating them together

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 10 B. 10. It is relevant to note that the assessee has also alleged invocation of section 263 of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the same manner as has been done for assessment year 2009-10 and grounds in all three appeals are almost similar, therefore, we are adjudicating them together

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 10 B. 10. It is relevant to note that the assessee has also alleged invocation of section 263 of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the same manner as has been done for assessment year 2009-10 and grounds in all three appeals are almost similar, therefore, we are adjudicating them together

DHEERWATI SEWA TRUST ,MEERUT vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royasstt. Yr: 2017-18

revised by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act on the following grounds:- a) Unsecured loans received in the sum of Rs 13,50,000/- was not examined by the ld. AO in the assessment proceedings. b) Assessee is not eligible for depreciation

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST (REGD),FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

revised was passed. Therefore, invocation of the power conferred u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(E) in so far as the second issue i.e. depreciation

M/S IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as\ninfructuous

u/s 32 of the I.T. Act held that the assessee is not\nthe owner of the roads and therefore, is not entitled to the\nclaim of depreciation thereon. It is also pertinent to mention\nhere that the 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation in\nsection 32(1)(ii) of the Act, are only those which are owned\nby the assessee

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs. CIT DELHI IV,

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

u/s 263 of the Act, as to what is the prejudice caused to the interest of the Revenue and hence the revision is bad in law. (k) For the A.Y. 2004-05 one more issue arises i.e. the allowability of the claim for depreciation