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

section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred to in this subsection and passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

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

section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred to in this subsection and passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

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

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 for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 263 of the Act. 45 173 In fact, it is pertinent to note that section 263 nowhere refers to an assessment order passed by the NaFAC under section 144B of the Faceless Assessment Scheme to be subjected to revisionary jurisdiction. It only confers revisionary jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the ‘Assessing Officer’ or the ‘Transfer Pricing Officer

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

transfer pricing provisions as well as section 40A(2) of the Act. However, the AO has not raised any query on these transactions from this point of view. Further, the assessee, in the audit report, has not even disclosed the names of the parties to whom such payments were made.\n\nii. Platform Selling Expenses, During the assessment proceedings

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

price of Rs. 80/- including share premium of Rs. 70/- per share to the following investors: M/s Best Buildmart (P) Ltd., M/s Goodluck Industries Ltd., M/s Metalcity Construction Kovai (P) Ltd., M/s Radha Ballabh Nest Build (P) Ltd, M/s Texcity Constructions Kovai (P) Ltd. 4. Due to unfavourable market conditions, the assessee company could not start its business activities. During

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: ITA Nos. 1883 & 2144/Del/2023 6 Vijay Kumar Soni Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: ITA Nos. 1883 & 2144/Del/2023 6 Vijay Kumar Soni Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

TATA NYK SHIPPING PTE. LTD. ,SINGAPORE vs. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to examine arm’s 3 AY: 2016-17 length nature of such transactions. After considering the order of the TPO passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer ultimately completed the assessment vide order dated 14.06.2019 accepting the income declared by the assessee. The assessment order so passed was taken up for review

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee through ITBA under DIN & Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2020- 21/1031641759(1)/2287dated 22.03.2021 requiring him to explain as to why the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act should not be considered as erroneous

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).

section 263 are to be considered which 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 for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

SAMSUNG C & T CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 263 of the Act to the assessee seeking response on the following four issues: a) Why shouldn’t Contract A (Offshore supply ) & Contract B (Onshore services ) be regarded as one composite contract and assessment be framed accordingly. b) That in light of the GSA why shouldn’t the presence of business PE be presumed to be in India

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

prices at which such goods or services had transferred. It was submitted that this would necessarily entail one unit making a profit at the cost of another. In our view; the reliance placed on the provisions of Section 10A(6) of the Act read 2015:DHC:8531-DB ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 29 of 32 with Section 80IA

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

prices at which such goods or services had transferred. It was submitted that this would necessarily entail one unit making a profit at the cost of another. In our view; the reliance placed on the provisions of Section 10A(6) of the Act read 2015:DHC:8531-DB ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 29 of 32 with Section 80IA

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

prices at which such goods or services had transferred. It was submitted that this would necessarily entail one unit making a profit at the cost of another. In our view; the reliance placed on the provisions of Section 10A(6) of the Act read 2015:DHC:8533-DB ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 29 of 32 with Section 80IA

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

prices at which such goods or services had transferred. It was submitted that this would necessarily entail one unit making a profit at the cost of another. In our view; the reliance placed on the provisions of Section 10A(6) of the Act read 2015:DHC:8533-DB ITA Nos. 83/2003 & 124/2003 Page 29 of 32 with Section 80IA

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 263 jurisdiction will not be justified. 10. Notice dated 23.10.24 and 20.02.25 issued by Ld. CIT initially alleged issues mentioned therein were not enquired into/ verified but para 9 of impugned order cancels whole assessment order and directs fresh adjudication, proving that entire exercise of invoking revision was a mere empty pretext to carry out fishing and roving enquiries

ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR, CIT, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

price) can be incurred on such transfer.” 3. Further ld. PCIT observed that the reasons for selection of the case for scrutiny through CASS was not examined and order is passed in prima facie view, without making enquiries and verification which should have been made. By recording the above reasons, a notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued