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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision order passed u/s 263 beyond the jurisdiction is bad in law, thus, in our considered opinion, the Ld. PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction making allegations on the issue which are not forming part of the notice issue for initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of eh Act. Accordingly, we hold that assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue

DECENT SECURITIES (P) LTD,DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Vs. Pr. Cit, Kd-195, Pitampura, Delhi-1 New Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd4440N Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025

disallowance of interest on these 3 loan creditors either u/s 36(l)(iii) or u/s 37 of the Act since, the loan amount itself was earlier added u/s 68 of the Act, but the ld PCIT in his wisdom, chose not to do so. We find the ld PCIT had only suggested this interest payable emanating from a journal entry

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

revised at a loss of INR 13,80,34,40,881/- and the refund claimed was reduced to INR 64,81,59,212/-. The return was selected under scrutiny by way of notice issued u/s 143(2) on 31.03.2021. During the course of assessment proceedings, various notices u/s 142(1) were issued from time to time which were replied

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:-

Disallowance of loss from house property Rs.81,609/- Total Rs.2,02,919/- 3. Subsequently, on 24.07.2013 the CIT-16, Delhi, called for a report from the AO regarding errors in assessment of the assessee and his wife Smt. Shumana Sen. An order u/s 127 of the Act was passed by the ld.CIT-16 on 27.08.2013 transferring the jurisdiction over

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 83,850/-. Hence, he contended that the Ld. Pr. CIT did not verify the facts from records and he failed to appreciate the same in right perspective. 7. The law is well settled. The powers u/s 263 can be exercised if the order sought to be revised

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-23.68 crores During the year, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 23.68 crores as depreciation and had disallowed

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-23.68 crores During the year, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 23.68 crores as depreciation and had disallowed

M/S MEERUT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 143(3) pursuant to section 263 AO himself has proved by accepting the version of assessee and not making any addition/ disallowance that original order was not erroneous. On consideration of above facts we are of the view that on all four counts the order passed by Ld. AO which is subjected to revision

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

disallow depreciation partly or wholly or to make any addition and therefore, it cannot be said that order passed by the ld Pr. CIT amounted to a change of opinion as regards allowability of 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

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

disallowed two deductions; (1) deduction u/s 80 IA of the income tax act of Rs. 2526331398/– and (2) deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act of INR 1 77565250/–. 06 Thereafter, Ld. PCIT examined the records. On examination, he issued notice u/s 263 of the income tax act on 26/2/2019 asking assessee to show cause that why order passed u/s

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

revised on 18.10.2010 of Rs. 3246648940/-. Subsequently, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 02.052014 determining total income of Rs. 7293012330/-. Thereafter , action u/s 263 of the Act was taken and the order passed by the ld AO was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Subsequently, the order u/s 263 was passed

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)

u/s 14A. Question was whether a higher disallowance of more than T94 lac would have been made. Assessing Officer had conducted inquiry and accepted disallowance which was surrendered by the assessee. vyho/e Commissioner had not given or formed any opinion as to whether or not said disallowance was satisfactory or not, though Assessing Officer had applied his mind and accepted

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

263 any incriminating 13 ITA Nos.1354, 1355 & 1357/Del./2020 material has been referred to. Thus, he submitted that the directions given by Pr.CIT are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153A 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR has referred to in various written submissions filed during the course of hearing, however, nowhere he could rebut that

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

263 any incriminating 13 ITA Nos.1354, 1355 & 1357/Del./2020 material has been referred to. Thus, he submitted that the directions given by Pr.CIT are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153A 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR has referred to in various written submissions filed during the course of hearing, however, nowhere he could rebut that

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

263 any incriminating 13 ITA Nos.1354, 1355 & 1357/Del./2020 material has been referred to. Thus, he submitted that the directions given by Pr.CIT are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153A 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR has referred to in various written submissions filed during the course of hearing, however, nowhere he could rebut that

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

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)

disallow the deduction u/s 35(1) and u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, the eligible condition thereof was fully examined by the Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment proceedings, in order u/s 263 of the Act. 13. That the Pr. CIT has erred on facts and under the law in holding that the order passed by the Assessing