SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS claimed by the assessee. 11.5. We hold that the observations given by us hereinabove for the A.Y. 2009-10 in respect of items (a) and (b) above would hold good for A.Y. 2013-14 also except with variance in dates and variance in figures. Hence the revision order passed u/s 263

RED MONSTER MOBILE PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400021 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 263 of the Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : i) The deposit in HDFC bank account No. 03151930000609 was duly reflected in his IT return. Therefore, no cause has happened to the Revenue which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. ii) The deposit

RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

u/s 263 of the Act dated 13.7.2015 proposing to set aside the assessment order dated 24.03.2015 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax for the reasons that the assessment was framed in undue haste, without application of mind and without carrying out meaningful and proper inquiries by the AO on various issues raised under section 263

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

revision u/s 263 of the Act, as the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.03.2021 cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction to pass order u/s 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2023. 4. The Ld. CIT, has violated principles of natural justice, by not considering

SANDEEP P. PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -16, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s. 263 of the Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : i) The deposit in HDFC bank account No. 03151930000609 was duly reflected in his IT return. Therefore, no cause has happened to the Revenue which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. ii) The deposit

MR. KISHORE NANDLAL CHABRIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-16, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1554/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Mr. Kishore Nandlal Pcit-16 Room No.437, 4Th Floor Chabria Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, Radheya Aayakar Bhavan, Building, 14Th Road, Khar Maharishi Karve Road, West, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc5779R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Singh Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.07.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 Is Void Ab Initio Being Had In Law Based On Assumptions & Wrong Facts & Without Jurisdiction. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When

revising the assessment by invoking the provisions u/s 263 of the I. T. Act is bad in law. However, on the other hand the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The PCIT has invoked the power in view of the provisions u/s 263 of the Act on following points: - “1. Higher turnover reported in Service

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

u/s 263 of the Act the closing WDV of goodwill and furniture and fixture considered as Rs. NIL and Rs 70,04, 16, 158 respectively for AY 2012- 13. 20.3.4 The closing WDV for AY 2012-13 as per original Tax Audit Report ('original TAR') in case of goodwill is Rs. 32,08,02,497 and for furniture & fixtures including

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

263 of the revision: “1. The return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was electronically filed by the assessee on 29 November 2013 declaring total income of Rs. 539,949,260/ . The return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was revised by assesses on 26 March 2015 declaring a total income

BEE PEE TEXTILES,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 18 , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bee Pee Textiles Vs. Pr. Cit – 18, 384-F, Room No. 4,5 &6 Room No. 601, 6Th Dhabholkar, Wadi, Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi, Mumbai – Nariman Point, 4000024. Mumbai – 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffb3061R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Advani. Ar Respondent By : Shri Rahul Raman. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– 18, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

u/s. 263 of the Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : i) The deposit in HDFC bank account No. 03151930000609 was duly reflected in his IT return. Therefore, no cause has happened to the Revenue which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS and advance tax would be given after due verification of the same. Similarly for ground Nos. 29 & 31, the revised interest shall be calculated as per directions of the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/06/2017. In fact in this interim order dated 28/09/2017, though it was termed as order giving effect to the ld. CIT(A)‟s order

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

revision order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-31, Mumbai u/s.263 of the Act dated 30/03/2019 for the A.Y.2014-15. 2. We find that though the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal before us, the core issues to be decided are as under:- 2 M/s.Pooja Marketing a) Whether the ld PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263