LIUGONG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

263,757,004 4 Plant & Machinery 159,559,104 5 Motor Vehicles 2,250,684 6 Computer 2,358,491 7 Office Equipments 1,228,519 8 Furniture & 7,602,787 Fixtures 9 Electric 45,103,409 Equipments Computer Software 1,283,424 TOTAL 653,533,002 RISKS ASSUMED In any business, an organization has to bear many kinds

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 133(6) of the Act. 5.2 That the assessing officer/ TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that, the appellant has himself paid commission at the rate of 0.75% on bank guarantee to State Bank of India, which should be considered as CUP, as against the rate of 4.68%. ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 133(6) of the Act. 5.2 That the assessing officer/ TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that, the appellant has himself paid commission at the rate of 0.75% on bank guarantee to State Bank of India, which should be considered as CUP, as against the rate of 4.68%. ITA No 4249 / Del/2012, 4110/Del/2013 & 6337/Del/2013

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

263 of the Act is a premature order, in as much was is no order capable of being revised. 4. That without prejudice to the above grounds the AO ought to have considered that once a reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act was made in the original proceedings to the Transfer Pricing

ETT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN EXPRESS MULTIMEDIA LTD),NEW DELHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL-II, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14

revision u/s 263 and what is the legal requirement under which under which Ld. CIT can set aside / cancel the assessment order. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 14. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT DR has filed her written submissions, wherein various judgments have been quoted in support of the findings given

M/S HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer in case of the assessee has held that payment of royalty, model fees, technical guidance fees, have been held to be at Arm’s Hero Honda Motors Ltd V DCIT 2148/del/2009 A Y 2004-05 Appeal Against Order u/s 263 of The ACT Page 7 of 34 Length for this year. He therefore submitted that

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

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

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

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

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

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

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

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment proposed by Ld.TPO vide order dated 20.01.2014. The taxable income was thus computed by Ld.AO at Rs.20,65,34,305/-. 2.3. Before Sec.263 proceedings started, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against order passed by Ld.A.O. dated 30.03.2014 u/s 143(3) challenging additions made therein. Since, by then, Ld.Pr.CIT issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 263

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing adjustment proposed by Ld.TPO vide order dated 20.01.2014. The taxable income was thus computed by Ld.AO at Rs.20,65,34,305/-. 2.3. Before Sec.263 proceedings started, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against order passed by Ld.A.O. dated 30.03.2014 u/s 143(3) challenging additions made therein. Since, by then, Ld.Pr.CIT issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 263

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

transfer. Further as per Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, a reference to DVO is required in case an assessee contests the circle rate to be higher than the fair market value of the relevant capital asset. Since Assessing Officer neither assessed the value at the circle rate a;- mandated u/s 50 C (1), nor referred

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

SSE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that even after a thorough examination, no specific error in the assessment order causing prejudice to the Revenue has been identified and the revision is ordered tentatively on the erroneous basis that necessary enquiries do not appear to have been made. The order being ab initio illegal and void

SURYA IRRIGATION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that even after a thorough examination, no specific error in the assessment order causing prejudice to the Revenue has been identified and the revision is ordered tentatively on the erroneous basis that necessary enquiries do not appear to have been made. The order being ab initio illegal and void

SHREE SAI CITY PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that even after a thorough examination, no specific error in the assessment order causing prejudice to the Revenue has been identified and the revision is ordered tentatively on the erroneous basis that necessary enquiries do not appear to have been made. The order being ab initio illegal and void