TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

section 144B of the Act and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence the assessment order deserved to be quashed. Re: Disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. RITU BALA, FARIDABDA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ritu Bala, Vs. Faridabad 4237 Indra Prashtha Colony, Haryana Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana Pan :Bdhpb1495B (Appellant) (Respondent)

144B dated 17.08.2022 was issued. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.01.2023 and 01.02.2023 were issued to Assessee. Show-cause-notice dated 13.02.2023 and 16.03.2023 were issued. The assessee furnished partial reply. Opportunity by VC was afforded on 21.03.2023. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 23.03.2023 disallowed

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') at Rs.808,53,61,917 as against returned income of Rs.7,68,21,64,860. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the assessing officer under section 144C(13), having been passed beyond limitation provided in terms of Section

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

144B, assessing income of the appellant at Rs.24,91,76,860, after making two disallowances. 2.1 The first disallowance was with regard denial of deduction claimed under section

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the AO, in pursuance of the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, had passed the assessment order afresh on 20.03.2025 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B

ASSOTECH MOONSHINE URBAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the AO, in pursuance of the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, had passed the assessment order afresh on 20.03.2025 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B

ANKUR GOYAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the AO, in pursuance of the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act, had passed the assessment order afresh on 20.03.2025 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B

JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

144B of the Act is time barred having been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 144C(13) for completion of assessment. 4. In the alternative to ground no. 3, directions issued by Ld. DRP under section 144C(5) have been issued beyond time limit prescribed under section 144C(12). 5. Without prejudice to the above, assessment proceedings which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-29(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. M/S. DISCOVERY SALES, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalito, Ward 29(1) Vs. M/S Discovery Sales Room No. 1002, E-2 Csc-11, Rbi Colony, Block, Civic Centre, Panchsheel Park Minto Road Delhi – 110016 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacad8701C Appellant .. Respondent

section 144B(1)(xii) of the Act and principal of natural justice as well not issuing further show causes notice proposing the alleged additions/ disallowances

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

144B of the Act along with demand notice under section 156 of the Act and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.  The final assessment order passed was also accompanied by a notice of demand issued under section 156 of the Act (along with the computation sheet), and a penalty notice issued under section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

144B of the Act along with demand notice under section 156 of the Act and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.  The final assessment order passed was also accompanied by a notice of demand issued under section 156 of the Act (along with the computation sheet), and a penalty notice issued under section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

144B of the Act along with demand notice under section 156 of the Act and penalty notice under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.  The final assessment order passed was also accompanied by a notice of demand issued under section 156 of the Act (along with the computation sheet), and a penalty notice issued under section

RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144B does not arise as the addition was not part of the Assessment Order is erroneous. The Assessing Officer and the CPC had assessed the total income of the Appellant as Rs. 33,17,74,52,060/-, which included the amount of Rs.26,54,02,75,345/-. Therefore, as the AO had taken complete cognizance of the disallowance

NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144B", "92CA", "144C(1)", "153", "92D", "94B", "115BAA(5)", "115BB", "234B", "234C", "270A" ], "issues": "1. Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest paid on NCDs is justified when the interest was already disallowed

NIKON INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

disallowance of bonus under Section 43B of the Act. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned final assessment order. I.T.A. No.1628/Del/2022 5 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that although several legal and factual grounds have been taken as per the grounds of appeal

HARISH KUMAR,DELHI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023 completed the assessment at income of Rs. 36,24,74,243/- by disallowing the short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act and adding the said amount. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee and revenue both are in cross appeals before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI vs. HARISH KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

144B of the Act dated 29.05.2023 completed the assessment at income of Rs. 36,24,74,243/- by disallowing the short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act and adding the said amount. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee and revenue both are in cross appeals before

LINKEDIN TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI -4 , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

144B of the Act, itself is bad in law and void ab initio. Therefore, the consequent revisionary proceedings and the impugned Order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act to revise such a non-est reassessment order is also bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Appellant prays that the impugned Order, passed under section