MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

144b. 6[(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub- section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner

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)

1) of the IT Act. 12. As regards violation of section 144B of the Act, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that that Section 144B(l)(xvi)(b) of the Act mandatorily provides for the issuance of a prior show cause notice and draft assessment order before issuing a final assessment order. Since in the present case no show cause

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

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "144B", "143(2)", "144B(i)(xvi)", "145(3)", "144", "133(6)", "69A", "69", "69B", "44AB", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases and disallowance

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

144B(i)(xvi) of the Act.\n\n5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in rejecting the books of accounts without duly appreciating that the Appellant was prevented by a just and reasonable cause from producing the same during the assessment proceedings and the CIT(A) has erred

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

section 80-IA(4)(iv) and that the steam generated by these units is supplied to the assessee’s own manufacturing divisions. The DRP in A.Y. 2016-17 had already accepted the principle that the ALP of steam should be determined by converting it into its equivalent electricity units and applying the relevant electricity tariff rate. The coordinate benches

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

section 80-IA(4)(iv) and that the steam generated by these units is supplied to the assessee’s own manufacturing divisions. The DRP in A.Y. 2016-17 had already accepted the principle that the ALP of steam should be determined by converting it into its equivalent electricity units and applying the relevant electricity tariff rate. The coordinate benches

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

section 80-IA(4)(iv) and that the steam generated by these units is supplied to the assessee’s own manufacturing divisions. The DRP in A.Y. 2016-17 had already accepted the principle that the ALP of steam should be determined by converting it into its equivalent electricity units and applying the relevant electricity tariff rate. The coordinate benches

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

section 263 of the Act. 45 173 In fact, it is pertinent to note that section 263 nowhere refers to an assessment order passed by the NaFAC under section 144B of the Faceless Assessment Scheme to be subjected to revisionary jurisdiction. It only confers revisionary jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the ‘Assessing Officer’ or the ‘Transfer Pricing Officer

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

NEERU DUGGAL,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4 , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

xvi) No detail of persons belonging to sales team, who have administered gift distribution (as claimed by Sh. Rajnish Talwar), was provided by Sh. Rajnish Talwar, so that facts could be verified by this office. xvii) It is highly improbable that HO/Head Office of M/s Jagatjit Industries Limited was buying the gifts instead of field offices/sales team. xviii) Sh. Sanjay

DUGGAL & SONS BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

xvi) No detail of persons belonging to sales team, who have administered gift distribution (as claimed by Sh. Rajnish Talwar), was provided by Sh. Rajnish Talwar, so that facts could be verified by this office. xvii) It is highly improbable that HO/Head Office of M/s Jagatjit Industries Limited was buying the gifts instead of field offices/sales team. xviii) Sh. Sanjay

DUGGAL & SONS BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

xvi) No detail of persons belonging to sales team, who have administered gift distribution (as claimed by Sh. Rajnish Talwar), was provided by Sh. Rajnish Talwar, so that facts could be verified by this office. xvii) It is highly improbable that HO/Head Office of M/s Jagatjit Industries Limited was buying the gifts instead of field offices/sales team. xviii) Sh. Sanjay

RAJNISH TALWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

xvi) No detail of persons belonging to sales team, who have administered gift distribution (as claimed by Sh. Rajnish Talwar), was provided by Sh. Rajnish Talwar, so that facts could be verified by this office. xvii) It is highly improbable that HO/Head Office of M/s Jagatjit Industries Limited was buying the gifts instead of field offices/sales team. xviii) Sh. Sanjay

RAJNISH TALWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

xvi) No detail of persons belonging to sales team, who have administered gift distribution (as claimed by Sh. Rajnish Talwar), was provided by Sh. Rajnish Talwar, so that facts could be verified by this office. xvii) It is highly improbable that HO/Head Office of M/s Jagatjit Industries Limited was buying the gifts instead of field offices/sales team. xviii) Sh. Sanjay