VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 263. The Assessing Officer after making an enquiry and eliciting a response from the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to depreciation

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 263. The Assessing Officer after making an enquiry and eliciting a response from the assessee came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to depreciation

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

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

Section 263 order\n| Amount (in Rs.)\n| Reference to paper\n| book\n| Profit & Loss Account (PBT)\n| 17,09,20,004\n| Pg. 58 - Computation\n| of income\n| Add:\n| Depreciation

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)

263 of the Act. Facts therein shows that Ld.AO made disallowance of Rs.6,44,81,091/–, being depreciation capitalised for reinstalling fixed assets. Addition was challenged by assessee before Ld.CIT(A), who decided the issue with respect to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.66,27,782/– on capitalisation of installation cost of fixed assets. Ld.CIT assumed jurisdiction under section

TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Act. He observed that the assessment order was passed without making inquiries or verification which should have 7 AY: 2016-17 been made and consequently the assessment order was passed allowing assessee’s claim without enquiring into the claim. 5.1 Having held so, he proceeded to examine the taxability of shipping income earned by the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

263 of the Act as he noticed that the depreciation on goodwill which was accepted by the assessing officer was not an asset so 2011:DHC:219-DB as to entitle the assessee the benefit of depreciation as claimed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

263 of the Act as he noticed that the depreciation on goodwill which was accepted by the assessing officer was not an asset so 2011:DHC:219-DB as to entitle the assessee the benefit of depreciation as claimed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

263 of the Act as he noticed that the depreciation on goodwill which was accepted by the assessing officer was not an asset so 2011:DHC:219-DB as to entitle the assessee the benefit of depreciation as claimed under Section

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

depreciation of Rs.60,19,18,398/-\ni.e. of 10% of the building value that too in terms of the direction passed\nby the Ld. PCIT invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

depreciation on the computer software and he thus issued notice dated 3.1.2013 under section 263 of the Act to the assessee

JINDAL STEEL POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

depreciation on the computer software and he thus issued notice dated 3.1.2013 under section 263 of the Act to the assessee

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

CIT vs. GOETZE (INDIA) LTD

depreciation on re-valued reserve was claimed in the earlier assessment years. 28. Commissioner in her order under Section 263