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

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

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

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

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. M/S SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

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 maybe, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA." 23. First of all, we observe that

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

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)(b

DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision, I noted that an important concept mentioned in Section 153A of the Act, which is peculiar to the scheme of search assessments. Keeping in view the basic fundamental features of search assessments i.e., Section 153A of the Act, if the provisions of Section 153D is scrutinized, it would

VANSHIKA MOTORS (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision, I noted that an important concept mentioned in Section 153A of the Act, which is peculiar to the scheme of search assessments. Keeping in view the basic fundamental features of search assessments i.e., Section 153A of the Act, if the provisions of Section 153D is scrutinized, it would

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision, I noted that an important concept mentioned in Section 153A of the Act, which is peculiar to the scheme of search assessments. Keeping in view the basic fundamental features of search assessments i.e., Section 153A of the Act, if the provisions of Section 153D is scrutinized, it would

BEST CITY PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

b) of sub- section (1) of Section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:)'' 10. As per Section 153-D, no order of assessment under Sections 153A and 153B can be passed by the A.O. without prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. 11. The assessment order dated 24.12.2010 was passed under Section 153A read with Section

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 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