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

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263

M/S. SHIV SAI INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

section 263 of the I.T. Act on the reasons that amount in question is not Rs.10 lakhs received from these two companies, but, it is Rs.50 lakhs each i.e., Rs.1 crore. Thus, the facts mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and non-existent. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

M/S. SPJ HOTELS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

section 263 of the I.T. Act on the reasons that amount in question is not Rs.10 lakhs received from these two companies, but, it is Rs.50 lakhs each i.e., Rs.1 crore. Thus, the facts mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and non-existent. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

M/S. SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

section 263 of the I.T. Act on the reasons that amount in question is not Rs.10 lakhs received from these two companies, but, it is Rs.50 lakhs each i.e., Rs.1 crore. Thus, the facts mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and non-existent. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

SUPERIOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

section 263 of the I.T. Act on the reasons that amount in question is not Rs.10 lakhs received from these two companies, but, it is Rs.50 lakhs each i.e., Rs.1 crore. Thus, the facts mentioned in the reasons for reopening of the assessment are incorrect and non-existent. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

263; and secondly, if any material has been found pertaining to the assessee in the case of person searched or covered u/s 153A, then only recourse was to initiate proceedings under section 153C and not under section 147. At the outset, we do not find any quarrel to the proposition that the validity of assessment or reassessment

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

263; and secondly, if any material has been found pertaining to the assessee in the case of person searched or covered u/s 153A, then only recourse was to initiate proceedings under section 153C and not under section 147. At the outset, we do not find any quarrel to the proposition that the validity of assessment or reassessment

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

263; and secondly, if any material has been found pertaining to the assessee in the case of person searched or covered u/s 153A, then only recourse was to initiate proceedings under section 153C and not under section 147. At the outset, we do not find any quarrel to the proposition that the validity of assessment or reassessment

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

263; and secondly, if any material has been found pertaining to the assessee in the case of person searched or covered u/s 153A, then only recourse was to initiate proceedings under section 153C and not under section 147. At the outset, we do not find any quarrel to the proposition that the validity of assessment or reassessment

KAPIL MEHTA,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-3, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: The Assessing Officer

263, in a case where the assessment under Section 153A of the Act was originally framed after compliance of Section 153D of the Act?'' 9. We answer the question against the assessee. Section 153D is as under: ''153D. No order of assessment or reassessment

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

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

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law, since the pre-requisite twin conditions for invoking jurisdiction under the said section have not been fulfilled qua the order of the AO.\nRe (f): Assessment completed by NaFAC cannot be subjected to revisionary proceedings\n166 It is of utmost important to note that in the present case

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 passed under section 147 was subsequently set aside by the CIT under section 263 on the issue

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HISAR vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishijindal Steel & Power Limited, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Delhi Road, Hissar, Tax, Haryana, India Gurugram, (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order passed held to be invalid, then consequentially the order passed under section 263 in respect of the reassessment

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the\nmatter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not\nexamined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed\nthe Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.”\n18. This particular aspect of making enquiry on the replies filed by the\nappellant

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

reassessment order dated 04.03.2013, which was passed under section 147 on the limited issue of quantum of deduction under section 80-IB only in respect of MBF unit, the CIT passed order under section 263