ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

section 119; or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

section 119; or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

section 119; or (d) The order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] [(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)2 vs. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY LTD. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 263 of the Act. The learned ITAT, rather observed that the AO did not make any additions on account of any bogus creditor found during the course of assessment but he rather disallowed

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 263 of the Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 263 of the Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 263 of the Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court

M/S. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.5, Sector-41 (Kasna), Circle-12(1), Greater Noida Industrial New Delhi. Development Area, Gautam Budh Nagar Pan: Aaach8464L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Ms Shaily Gupta, Ca & Ms Mrinal Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sunit Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th February 2014 Passed U/S 263 By The Cit, Delhi-4, Delhi, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Portable Generating Sets, Ic Engines, Water Pumping Sets & Manufacture & Processing Of Pressure Die-Casting Parts. It Filed It'S Return Of Income On 27Th October 2007 Declaring Nil Income. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 29Th October 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.31,49,18,923/-. The Ao Passed The Order Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Act On 24Th October 2011, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.44,78,49,680/- Wherein He Made Addition Of Rs.13,29,30,660/- Under Various Heads Such As Royalty, Technical Guidance, Expert Commission & On Account Of Tp Adjustment.

section 263 of the Act. 3 5. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was argued that the sum of Rs.36,82,645/- being entry tax payable being mentioned as contingent nature was already added back in the disallowance

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 11.7 The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 11.8 Considering the above submission, we, prime facie, find substance in the contention of the Learned A R that the assessee was under the bona fide belief

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 on the issue of reversal of provision for doubtful advances, is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 10.1. Without prejudice, the PCIT erred in issuing vague/open ended directions to the assessing officer to examine the genuineness of the claim without appreciating that the appellant has claimed only reversal of provision for doubtful advances which was suo motu disallowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263/- made u/s 14A. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of Rs.2,00,413/- out of reimbursement of fuel expenses and telephone expenses.” “AY : 2007-08 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263/- made u/s 14A. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of Rs.2,00,413/- out of reimbursement of fuel expenses and telephone expenses.” “AY : 2007-08 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263/- made u/s 14A. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of Rs.2,00,413/- out of reimbursement of fuel expenses and telephone expenses.” “AY : 2007-08 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 263 on the issue of reversal of provision for doubtful advances, is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 10. 1. Without prejudice, the PCIT erred in issuing vague/open ended directions to the assessing officer to examine the genuineness of the claim without appreciating that the appellant has claimed only reversal of provision for doubtful advances which was suo motu

SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, KANPUR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 1995-96 Sahara India Commercial Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Corporation Ltd. Lucknow (Erstwhile Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd.) Sahara India Sadan 2A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata 700 071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Act. Facts therein shows that Ld.AO made disallowance of Rs.6,44,81,091/–, being depreciation capitalised for reinstalling fixed assets. Addition was challenged by assessee before Ld.CIT(A), who decided the issue with respect to disallowance of depreciation of Rs.66,27,782/– on capitalisation of installation cost of fixed assets. Ld.CIT assumed jurisdiction under section

MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimanisha Juneja Sawhney, Vs. The Cit, W-31, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi International Taxation-3, Pan: Bjgps5452N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.” 2. Succinctly stated facts of case shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income on 29/7/2013 declaring total income of INR 19 1250 910/–. The assessment under section 143 (3) of income tax act, 1961 was passed on 18/3/2016 wherein learned assessing officer determine total income of assessee

SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SURI,NEW DELHI vs. PR CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

section 263 of the act. The arguments of Ld. Authorized representative on the issue with respect to cash deposited in the bank account, loan repaid, bank interest on fixed deposit receipt and absence of narration in the bank statements were more on the aspect that no such addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. However, nothing

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated