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:

1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer 47[or the Transfer Pricing

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act. During such proceedings, - the TPO, vide notice dated 25.02.2021, inter-alia, required the assessee to submit the details of change in shareholding structure and other international transactions [refer pages 97-98 of paperbook]; and - in response thereto, the appellantvide reply dated 07.07.2021 submitted (as Annexure-11 to the reply

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

263(1) of the Act were available only if the order sought to be reviewed was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and was unsustainable in law. 26. In view of the settled law as indicated above, the issue to be considered is whether the claim of the Assessee for including notional interest as profit and gains derived from

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

263(1) of the Act were available only if the order sought to be reviewed was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and was unsustainable in law. 26. In view of the settled law as indicated above, the issue to be considered is whether the claim of the Assessee for including notional interest as profit and gains derived from

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

263(1) of the Act were available only if the order sought to be reviewed was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and was unsustainable in law. 26. In view of the settled law as indicated above, the issue to be considered is whether the claim of the Assessee for including notional interest as profit and gains derived from

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

263(1) of the Act were available only if the order sought to be reviewed was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and was unsustainable in law. 26. In view of the settled law as indicated above, the issue to be considered is whether the claim of the Assessee for including notional interest as profit and gains derived from

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided

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

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

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

1, and it was observed that, prima facie, the AO had passed the order which is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on several counts. Accordingly, the learned PCIT issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act to the assessee on 12.12.2023, asking the assessee to explain why the assessment order passed

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

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)

1) and 143(2) calling upon the assessee to reply to various queries made in the notices and also to furnish the necessary details. Further, noticing that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs), the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to examine arm’s 3 AY: 2016-17 length

SHENHZHEN SDG INFORMATION CO. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

transfer pricing analysis on the basis of 22 | P a g e functions, assets and risk is not to be considered as India it has no legal basis under the Indian DTAAs and also under the provisions of Income-tax Act. FAR analysis to allocate income is adopted only for transactions between related parties (AEs) falling under the scope

PAWAN KUMAR HUF,DAYANAND NAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORESHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 263(1) 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

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