701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT v. Rajiv Sharma

CHANCHAL BANSAL,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 ROHTAK, ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalchanchal Bansal Vs. Ito Ward-3 Mohallamazid, 14, Aayakarbhawan Ward No.25, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124001 Haryana – 124507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bicpb3122P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Jain, Ca Ms. Vrishti Jain, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

…nder Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the return was treated as invalid the Assessing Officer need not issue notice u/s 143(2) before completion of a…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL vs. ASHUTOSH FOODS, NISSING

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ashutosh Foods Income Tax, Karnalkaithal Road, Aayakarbhawan, Nissingkarnal, Sector-12, Karnal Haryana – 132024 Haryana – 132001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfa2840F Appellant .. Respondent

…nder Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the return was treated as invalid the Assessing Officer need not issue notice u/s 143(2) before completion of…

DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MORADABAD, MORADABAD

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/115, Flat No. B-1, Sai Niwas, Ward 2(1), Arya Nagar, Kanpur - 208020 Moradabad ( U.P) Uttar Pradesh. Pin: 244 001 Pan :Acmpg1836E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…nder Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the return was treated as invalid the Assessing Officer need not issue notice u/s 143(2) before completion of a…

ANIL AGARWAL HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2594/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Anil Agarwal Huf Income Tax Officer, F-71,Second Floor, Vs. Ward-28(1), Main Green Park, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aahha2179P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 4 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the return was treated as invalid the Assessing Officer need not issue notice u/s 143(2) before completion…

REENA MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee on this additional

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17

…he has relied upon the following judgments: - CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal in SLP (C) No.7708 of 2019 dt:14.08.2019 (SC); - ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC); - PCIT v. Silver Line 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) (HC) - Pr CIT vs Staunch Marketing Pvt Ltd 404 ITR 299 (Del) - DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del) 7. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Dart Infrabuild P Ltd 118 CCH 0174 (Del) was further relied upon. Relying on the ratio laid down to this effect by that Court that the view of the AO that since ret…

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/s Nishit Fincap Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-18(3), B-1/14, Upper Ground Vs New Delhi Floor, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 PAN-AAACN3687M Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11 .04.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27/04/2021 of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessm…