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

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

153B,\nexcept with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”\n8. As argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee, in view of this\nprovision, I noted that an important concept mentioned in Section\n153A of the Act, which is peculiar to the scheme of search\nassessments. Keeping in view the basic fundamental features of\nsearch assessments i.e., Section 153A

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

153B, which is applicable. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question of law mentioned above is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent assessee. The tribunal through the appeals on merits. The parties will appear before the Assistant Regisrar March, 2012, when a date of hearing will be fixed. No costs,." 9.5. The report

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:] Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 2. Perusal

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:] Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 2. Perusal

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:] Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 2. Perusal

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:] Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 2. Perusal

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:] Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 2. Perusal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. EMPIRE CASTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and C

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB are illegal, unjust, bad in law and are highly excessive and the same can not be justified. 5. That the respondent reserves the right to add/amend/alter the grounds of cross objection.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on M/s Wings

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

153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. “ 6. The ld CIT DR placed on record a report from the ld AO wherein it had been stated that the ld DRP‟s directions dated 25.03.2022 were uploaded mainly

M3M INDIA HOLDINGS,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Ground No.3 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs.155. 75 crores and assessed the income at Rs.514.78 crores in assessment order under section 153B(1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there