HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment being in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021 (Ground 6) is concerned, we find that the said Circular provides for considering potential cases for issuance of notice u/s 148 where the reports of DIT(Investigation); Directorate of Intelligence and Criminal Investigation as flagged by DIT(System) are available with the AO. In the instant case

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment being in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021 (Ground 6) is concerned, we find that the said Circular provides for considering potential cases for issuance of notice u/s 148 where the reports of DIT(Investigation); Directorate of Intelligence and Criminal Investigation as flagged by DIT(System) are available with the AO. In the instant case

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment being in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021 (Ground 6) is concerned, we find that the said Circular provides for considering potential cases for issuance of notice u/s 148 where the reports of DIT(Investigation); Directorate of Intelligence and Criminal Investigation as flagged by DIT(System) are available with the AO. In the instant case

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

548,958,072 Expenditure on AMP by assessee 1,157,215,159 Expenditure in excess of bright line 608,257,087 Mark-up at 15% 91,238,563 Reimbursement that assessee should have received 699,495,650 Reimbursement actually received NIL Adjustment to assessee’s income 699,495,650 8. The Dispute Resolution Panel (‗DRP‘, for short) substantially rejected

SOBHIN BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as\nindicated above

reassessment proceeding is to\nbe judged with reference to the material\navailable with the Assessing Officer at the point of\ntime of the issue of notice under section 147 of\nthe Act.\nvi. The fact of non-application of mind is more\nconspicuous from the fact that in para 2 of the\nreasons recorded in the last two lines which

EVERSUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

548 & 782/Del/2022\nEversub India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI\n(DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DELHI)\nBEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 548/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18)\nITA No. 782/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19)\nEversub India Private Limited | Vs Deputy Commissioner of\n(Formerly as ‘Subway Systems\nIndia Private

EVERSUB INDIA PRIVATE LTD. (FORMELY AS ' SUBWAY SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

548 & 782/Del/2022 Eversub India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 782/DEL/2022 (A.Y. 2018-19) Eversub India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of (Formerly as ‘Subway Systems Income Tax, India Private Limited) Circle- 22(2), Delhi Unit

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings under Act has not been pressed. In view of this, the only issue that needs to be adjudicated is whether the “cloud service fee” received by the assessee from customers in India is liable to tax in India being in the nature of royalty and FTS/FIS under the provisions of the Act and the India-USA DTAA

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings under Act has not been pressed. In view of this, the only issue that needs to be adjudicated is whether the “cloud service fee” received by the assessee from customers in India is liable to tax in India being in the nature of royalty and FTS/FIS under the provisions of the Act and the India-USA DTAA

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund 8 ITA No. 7552 & CO. 27/Del./2018 already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that

BAJRANG LAL MUHAL,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessed is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

548/-. In the absence of supporting documents and any explanation with regard to source of credit card payments furnished by the assessee, reassessment was completed under Section

SARENA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR,CIT CENTRE DELHI-3, DELHI

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by\nthe Revenue is dismissed

section 147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the\nRevenue.\n7.\nOn the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned PCIT has erred in distinguishing the case of the assessee from the\ncase of Sajan Kumar Jain & others vs. PCIT whereby the hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi decided inter-alia the legal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

548 /DEL/2017 (A.Ys.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-15, Jhandewalan Extension,\nNew Delhi 110055\n....... अपीलार्थी/Appellant\nबनाम Vs.\nThapar Homes Ltd.,\nC/O Bhupesh K. Dhingra & Co.\nChartered Accountants, 604, Padma Tower-II,\nRajendra Place, New Delhi 110008\nPAN NO: AACCT-3106-F\nप्रतिवादी/Respondent\nAssessee by : S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik Jayal

THAPAR HOMES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

548 /DEL/2017 (A.Ys.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-15, Jhandewalan Extension,\nNew Delhi 110055\n......... अपीलार्थी/Appellant\nबनाम Vs.\nThapar Homes Ltd.,\nC/O Bhupesh K. Dhingra & Co.\nChartered Accountants, 604, Padma Tower-II,\nRajendra Place, New Delhi 110008\nPAN NO: AACCT-3106-F\nप्रतिवादी/Respondent\nAssessee by\n: S/Shri Vikas Jain, Hardik

MANOJ KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

548 & 54F of the 1.T. Act, 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 2348 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessees along with their brothers, family members and two other co-owners had entered

SHRI KISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

548 & 54F of the 1.T. Act, 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 2348 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessees along with their brothers, family members and two other co-owners had entered

BRIJWASI JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO without valid approval of the prescribed authority under the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.67,64,541/- made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. BRIJWASI JEWELLERS, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO without valid approval of the prescribed authority under the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.67,64,541/- made