DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

u/s 263 of the Act. The provision of Section 263 reads as under: “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commission or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Income-tax Officer

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

revising your total\nincome of Rs.6,20,42,83,460/-. Your case was further selected for \"Complete\nScrutiny\" through CASS. Subsequently, assessment in your case was completed on\n25.08.2022 under Section 143(3) rws 144B of the Act at assessed income of Rs.\n6,20,42,83,460/-.\n3.\nOn perusal of your balance sheet of column

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2)No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

IDEMIA SYSCOM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. CIT(TP), DELHI-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

u/s 263 of the Act. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and have considered various decisions relied upon. Section 263 of the Act reads as under: “263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1)The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call

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

u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order so passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is completely against the facts of instant case of the assessee. In this regard, relevant provisions of section 263 of the act have been reproduced as under: "263. (1) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner

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

u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order so passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is completely against the facts of instant case of the assessee. In this regard, relevant provisions of section 263 of the act have been reproduced as under: "263. (1) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner

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

u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order so passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is completely against the facts of instant case of the assessee. In this regard, relevant provisions of section 263 of the act have been reproduced as under: "263. (1) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

THREEPENCE CRAFT ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 44(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 2234/Del/2015\nis allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5410/Del/2019 and\nappeal of the Revenue in ITA 5995/Del/2019 are dismissed as\ninfr...

revision of the assessment order. It is submitted\nthat such an action of the Ld. CIT is not permissible u/s 263 of the\nAct and the same is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision\nof the coordinate bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Volkswagen\nIndia Private Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA Nos.147 & 148/Pun/2019 dated\n19.10.2023

JUPITER INTERNATIONAL IMPORT EXPORT INDIA LTD,BULANDSHAHR vs. PR. CIT , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

price as declared by the assessee are required to be added to the income of the assessee. 7. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, we find that the company deals in trading of flats which has all along been treated as stock in trade. The company purchases/ books the flats at the time of soft launch

THREEPENCE CRAFT,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 2234/Del/2015\nis allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5410/Del/2019 and\nappeal of the Revenue in ITA 5995/Del/2019 are dismissed as\ninfr...

revision of the assessment order. It is submitted\nthat such an action of the Ld. CIT is not permissible u/s 263 of the\nAct and the same is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision\nof the coordinate bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Volkswagen\nIndia Private Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA Nos.147 & 148/Pun/2019 dated\n19.10.2023

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 263 of the Act, and, therefore, they are taken together for consideration. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, USA engaged in the manufacturing, replicating, marketing and distribution of Microsoft retail software products in India, including online cloud-based services. The return of income was filed on 25.11.2019 declaring

GENPACT CONSULTING (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS 'HEADSTRONG CONSULTING PTE. LTD.'),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

pricing documentation produced and after considering the economic analysis contained therein and details and explanations submitted no adverse inference was drawn in respect of ALP of the international transaction for the F.Y. 2014-15. 20. After receiving the order of the TPO, assessment was completed on 12.12.2018 u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein returned income i.e. NIL, was accepted

LINDE ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. PR.CIT- 5 , NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee‟s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

price and disallowance of Rs. 1,15,11,583/- on account of market to market losses. 2.1 Thereafter an order u/s 154 of the Act was also passed on 31.12.2015 by which the claim u/s 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,74,80,850/- for the assessment year under consideration was restricted

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revision by The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, New Delhi. On appeal before the coordinate bench against that order, the coordinate bench as per order dated 11 March 2019 has quashed assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 of The Income Tax Act. Further, for assessment year 2011 – 12 and 2012 – 13 the action u/s 147/148 of the income

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

revision by The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, New Delhi. On appeal before the coordinate bench against that order, the coordinate bench as per order dated 11 March 2019 has quashed assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 of The Income Tax Act. Further, for assessment year 2011 – 12 and 2012 – 13 the action u/s 147/148 of the income

ITO, WARD- 44(2), NEW DELHI vs. THREEPENCE CRAFT , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 2234/Del/2015\nis allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5410/Del/2019 and\nappeal of the Revenue in ITA 5995/Del/2019 are dismissed as\ninfr...

revision of the assessment order. It is submitted\nthat such an action of the Ld. CIT is not permissible u/s 263 of the\nAct and the same is bad in law. Reliance is placed on the decision\nof the coordinate bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Volkswagen\nIndia Private Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA Nos.147 & 148/Pun/2019 dated\n19.10.2023

AMAZON WEB SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

revise order passed by the TPO prior to amendment of section 263 of the Act vide Finance Act, 2022 effective from 01.04.2022. 9.2. That the PCIT erred in alleging that the transfer pricing order dated 31.07.2021, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as the TPO had not: (i) examined any transaction other than marketing support