Pr. CIT v. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd.

Sanbtosh Hospital P.Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

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

Bench: Sh. T.S Kapoor & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-15 Santosh Hospital P. Ltd. Acit No.1, Santosh Nagar, Vs Central Circle -6 Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2244J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…al High Courts of Delhi in the case M/s. BNB Investment & Properties Vs. DCIT & Ors. reported in 68 ITR 567 (Del.) following the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and Pr. CIT Vs. Server Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi). 11. Replying to the above the Ld. CIT DR submitted that satisfaction u/s.153 C is required for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14 and not for the impugned A.Y.2014-15. Further, there is no reliance of any seized documents on the basis of which u/s.153C satisfaction was recorded. Therefore, the impugned assessment year is a regular assessment year…

DCIT Circle- 05, New Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.11, Gali No.5, Block-A, Circle-05, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 094. Pan: Aabch6207Q Assessment Year: 2012-13

…rson’ (i.e. person covered u/s 153C), six preceding assessment years has to be reckoned from the year of search. This amendment has been held to be prospective by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarwar Agency P Ltd. as reported in 397 ITR 400, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed and held as under: “10. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent amendment made in Section 153 C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1st April 2017. This amendment in effect states that the block period for the searched person as w…

Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 05, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, Vs. Acit, No.11, Gali No.5, Block-A, Circle-05, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 094. Pan: Aabch6207Q Assessment Year: 2012-13

…rson’ (i.e. person covered u/s 153C), six preceding assessment years has to be reckoned from the year of search. This amendment has been held to be prospective by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarwar Agency P Ltd. as reported in 397 ITR 400, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed and held as under: “10. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent amendment made in Section 153 C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1st April 2017. This amendment in effect states that the block period for the searched person as w…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Noida

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…11. followed in the following decisions by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court:- i. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Centralj-1 v. Raj Buildworth (P.) Ltd 113 taxmann.com 600 (Delhi) ii. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sarwar Agency (P.) Ltd. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi) iii. ARN Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (394 ITR 569) (Delhi) 22. It was also stated by the learned authorised representative that the amendment made to the finance act 2017 to the provisions of Section 153C of the act is prospective in nature. 23. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) is bad…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus RRJ securities Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 612, SSP aviation Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax versus sarvar Agencies Private Limited (2017) 397 ITR 400 and host of other judicial precedents of the coordinate benches. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the act for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 are barred by limitation and therefore the learned CIT – A is not correct in not adjudicating this issue before him. ii. For assessment year 2011 – 12 he submitte…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus RRJ securities Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 612, SSP aviation Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax versus sarvar Agencies Private Limited (2017) 397 ITR 400 and host of other judicial precedents of the coordinate benches. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the act for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 are barred by limitation and therefore the learned CIT – A is not correct in not adjudicating this issue before him. ii. For assessment year 2011 – 12 he submitte…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus RRJ securities Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 612, SSP aviation Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax versus sarvar Agencies Private Limited (2017) 397 ITR 400 and host of other judicial precedents of the coordinate benches. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the act for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 are barred by limitation and therefore the learned CIT – A is not correct in not adjudicating this issue before him. ii. For assessment year 2011 – 12 he submitte…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus RRJ securities Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 612, SSP aviation Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax versus sarvar Agencies Private Limited (2017) 397 ITR 400 and host of other judicial precedents of the coordinate benches. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the act for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 are barred by limitation and therefore the learned CIT – A is not correct in not adjudicating this issue before him. ii. For assessment year 2011 – 12 he submitte…

DCIT Circle-1 Ltu, New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd, New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus RRJ securities Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 612, SSP aviation Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax versus sarvar Agencies Private Limited (2017) 397 ITR 400 and host of other judicial precedents of the coordinate benches. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the act for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 are barred by limitation and therefore the learned CIT – A is not correct in not adjudicating this issue before him. ii. For assessment year 2011 – 12 he submitte…

DCIT Circle-I(Ltu), New Delhi vs. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus RRJ securities Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 612, SSP aviation Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 177, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax versus sarvar Agencies Private Limited (2017) 397 ITR 400 and host of other judicial precedents of the coordinate benches. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the act for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 are barred by limitation and therefore the learned CIT – A is not correct in not adjudicating this issue before him. ii. For assessment year 2011 – 12 he submitte…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Oil Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and cross- objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

…on in RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) is also an authority for the proposition that for the proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, there had to be a satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the searched person.” 25. Further, in PCIT vs. Sarwar Agency P. Ltd., 397 ITR 400 (Del), Hon’ble Delhi High Court clearly observed that amendment in section 153C(1) which was brought by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1st April, 2017 is only prospective in nature. Therefore, such an amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of assessee for assessment year 2012- 13. In these circumstances, on this count also, we find tha…

Karina Airlines International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charykarina Airlines Intenational Vs. Acit, Circle- 5Dcit Limited, No. 11, Gali No. 5, New Delhi. Block-A, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi.

…rson’ (i.e. person covered u/s 153C), six preceding assessment years has to be reckoned from the year of search. This amendment has been held to be prospective by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarwar Agency P Ltd. as reported in 397 ITR 400, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed and held as under: “10. Mr. Salil Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Assessee, has drawn the attention of the Court to the recent amendment made in Section 153 C of the Act by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1st April 2017. This amendment in effect states that the block period for the searched person as…

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

…the year of search would be the year in which documents pertaining to other person were received. a. Jasjit Singh Vs ACIT ITA No-1436/Del/2012 order dated-05.11.2014( Affirmed by High Court) b. CIT Vs RRJ Securties -380 ITR 612(Del) c. CIT Vs Swar Agencies- 397 ITR 400(Del)- Delhi High Court. Wherein it has been held that amendment brought by legislature w.e.f from 1.04.2017 which says that year of assessment of searched person and other person covered under section 153C is prospective. 9.3 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now a question may arise as to what is wrong in the present assessment as…