BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

reassessment or recomputation may be taken. Section 251 reads as follows: Powers of the 70 [Joint Commissioner (Appcals) or the) Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment: [Provided that where such appeal

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

72. Reliance in this regard may be made to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vodafone India Limited v DCIT: ITA No. 1835/Mum/2018. In that case, share capital was received by the assessee from its existing Mauritius based shareholders on subscription to right issue of shares. The assessing officer added the said capital

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

72,799/- on 30.12.2005. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(4) of the Act was carried out on 11.01.2007 in the premises of the assessee's group companies and directors of the company. A disclosure of `16 crores was made by the group under Section 132(4) of the Act on behalf of different directors and relatives

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

72,799/- on 30.12.2005. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(4) of the Act was carried out on 11.01.2007 in the premises of the assessee's group companies and directors of the company. A disclosure of `16 crores was made by the group under Section 132(4) of the Act on behalf of different directors and relatives

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

72,799/- on 30.12.2005. A search and seizure operation under Section 132(4) of the Act was carried out on 11.01.2007 in the premises of the assessee's group companies and directors of the company. A disclosure of `16 crores was made by the group under Section 132(4) of the Act on behalf of different directors and relatives

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

72,87,305/-to the gross receipts of the appellant to be taxed as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented service tax collected for and behalf of the Government of India. 7. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding a sum of Rs.9

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A” Very recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court had an occasion to look at the conditions required to be fulfilled before initiating an action under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Two orders in the case of PepsiCo India Holdings

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A” Very recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court had an occasion to look at the conditions required to be fulfilled before initiating an action under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Two orders in the case of PepsiCo India Holdings

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. 97. Proceeding then to List II, we find that the petitions placed in that list pertain to cases where the hand over occurred in FYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Consequently, the relevant AYs' would be AY 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 respectively. In light of the principles enunciated