M/S. SATYASHIV SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT= 8, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Satyashiv Shares & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Securities Pvt. Ltd, Tax, M-11, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aancs5482Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order was passed without making proper verification and inquiries, and is therefore, deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence can be revised u/s 263 of the income tax act as per the amended provisions of section 263 with effect from 1/6/2015. Accordingly he held that the order passed

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION, GURGAON

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

92A to 92F of the Act and Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules). 10. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has failed to provide any rationale for attributing income at the rate of 15% of gross receipts 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act to the Appellant. 4. Apropos ground

ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INPUT OUTPUT INC.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

92A to 92F of the Act and Rules 10A to 10E of the Rules). 10. That the Ld. AO/ Ld. DRP has failed to provide any rationale for attributing income at the rate of 15% of gross receipts 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act to the Appellant. 4. Apropos ground

M/S. SHOWA INDIA PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.(Tp) No.166/Del.2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) M/S. Showa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 8(1), 23-32, Sector 58, New Delhi Faridabd, Haryana-121002 Gir / Pan :Aabce5725G (Appellant) (Respondent)

92A of the Act. . 2.4. That on the facts of the case the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition amounting to Rs.12,829,790/- twice, the same already being included in the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs.23,664,501/-. 3. That on the facts of the case the Ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition

LATE SHRI SOM PRAKASH SETHI ( THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MR. AMAN SETHI),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CRICLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi Vs Acit, (Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Circle-28(1), Sethi), S-541, Greater Kailash New Delhi. Part-Ii, South Delhi, New Delhi-110048. Pan-Abyps3902L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order

2 filed by the assessee. It is submitted by Ld.AR that the payment was made through banking channel which has not been doubted by the Revenue therefore, deduction of the cost incurred by the assessee of INR 1,10,25,000/- cannot be held as unexplained money received by the assessee at the time of sale and thus, addition