Raj Kumar Chawla v. ITO

94 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#3255 most cited

What is Raj Kumar Chawla v. ITO authority for?

A case is considered favourable to the assessee's contention when it aligns with their submission, as demonstrated by its inclusion in a list of supportive judgments.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Raj Kumar Chawla v. ITO · 94 ITD 1 · favourable judgment · assessee contention · sound footing · supportive decisions

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 153b(1)(a)time barred assessmentsection 148(1)section 153(1)(a)bona fide mistakesection 90asection 153b(1)section 153(4)section 292bbsection 158bcstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Raj Kumar Chawla v. ITO

LOKANADHA RAO BATHINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [Pan :Apqpb9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्रीदुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.283/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lokanadha Rao Bathina Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.54-11-33/3/1, Aditya Nagar Ward-3(2) Isukathota-530013 Infinity Towers, Andhra Pradesh Shankaramattam Road [PAN :APQPB9831H] Visakhapatnam - 530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Resp…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…of the assessee on this account is on sound footings. Some of the decisions/judgments favouring the contention of the appellant are briefly as under: , i) Bhagwat Prasad Verma v. ITO Ward-1, Roorkee [2006] 7 SOT 256 (DELHI) / ii) Raj Kumar Chawla v.lTO [2005] 94 ITD 1 (DELHI)(SB) iii) ITO v. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi [2008] 112 1TD1 (AHD.) iv) Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT and Others[2012] 341ITR 247 (Delhi) v) DIT Vs. V.R. Educational Trust - ITA No.510/2011 dated 10.02.2012. vi) Shri Mohinder Kumar Chhabra vs ITO, ITA No. 3523/Del/2013 (ITAT Delhi) vii) Pr.CIT vs Silver line 12016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) v…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…of the assessee on this account is on sound footings. Some of the decisions/judgments favouring the contention of the appellant are briefly as under: , i) Bhagwat Prasad Verma v. ITO Ward-1, Roorkee [2006] 7 SOT 256 (DELHI) / ii) Raj Kumar Chawla v.lTO [2005] 94 ITD 1 (DELHI)(SB) iii) ITO v. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi [2008] 112 1TD1 (AHD.) iv) Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT and Others[2012] 341ITR 247 (Delhi) v) DIT Vs. V.R. Educational Trust - ITA No.510/2011 dated 10.02.2012. vi) Shri Mohinder Kumar Chhabra vs ITO, ITA No. 3523/Del/2013 (ITAT Delhi) vii) Pr.CIT vs Silver line 12016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) v…

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

….2013 (Hon'ble Bombay High court) 12. CIT Vs. Deep Baruah (2010) 329 ITR 362, (Hon'bleGuhawati High Court) 12. CIT Vs. Salman Khan in Income-tax Appeal(L) No.2362 of 2009 dtd. 1.12.2009 (Hon'ble Bombay High court) 13. Raj Kumar Chawla & Others VS. ITO -(2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) 14. CIT vs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd, order dated 07.02.2017 (Bombay High Court) 15. Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd, order dated 14.10.2015 (Delhi High Court) 16. ITO v. Naseman Farms Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. In ITA No. 1175/Del/2011, dated 8-4-2015 17. ACIT Vs M/s. Dimension Promoters (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi),…

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

….2013 (Hon'ble Bombay High court) 12. CIT Vs. Deep Baruah (2010) 329 ITR 362, (Hon'bleGuhawati High Court) 12. CIT Vs. Salman Khan in Income-tax Appeal(L) No.2362 of 2009 dtd. 1.12.2009 (Hon'ble Bombay High court) 13. Raj Kumar Chawla & Others VS. ITO -(2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) 14. CIT vs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd, order dated 07.02.2017 (Bombay High Court) 15. Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd, order dated 14.10.2015 (Delhi High Court) 16. ITO v. Naseman Farms Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. In ITA No. 1175/Del/2011, dated 8-4-2015 17. ACIT Vs M/s. Dimension Promoters (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi),…

PARMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

ITA 6702/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

PARMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

ITA 6701/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5334/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5332/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 5330/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

PARAMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4576/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

PARAMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4575/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…u/s 143(2) should be seen as mandatory for assessment u/s 153A as well. 52. The ld. AR further submitted that the words “so far as may be” appearing in Section 148 were interpreted by the ITAT Delhi Special bench in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla Vs ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 wherein it was held that assessment u/s 147 is invalid if the notice u/s 143(2) is not issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which return u/s 147 was filed after issuance of notice u/s 148. To cure such time barred assessments, the law was amended retrospectively vide the Finance Act, 2006 and two provisos to Section 148 were inserted…

NANDLAL L. KODNANEY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4924/MUM/2014[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2020AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…of the assessment/s u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) of the Act, assailed for non-issue and, resultantly, non-service of the notice/s u/s. 143(2) within the stipulated time, for which the assessee relies, among others, on the decision in Raj Kumar Chawla v. ITO [2005] 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB). The proposition that an Nandlal L. Kondnaney v. ITO, Mumbai assessment u/s. 143(3) repudiating the assessee’s return without issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, i.e., within the prescribed time, is not valid, admits of no two views in view of the decisions by the Apex Court, as in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 417 ITR 325 (SC);…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3680/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Ms. Indra Bansal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…at the return filed for assessment year 2005-06 may be treated as a return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, by placing reliance on the decision of the special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla & Ors. Vs. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB), which is also considered by Division Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Tilak Raj Satija (ITA No. 391/Del/2010 – order dated 14.08.2013, Ld. CIT(A) reached a conclusion that for want of notice under section 143(2) of the Act the assessment is rendered null and void. 6. Aggrieved by such findings returned by the Ld. CIT(A), Re…

FLOVEL ENERGY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6485/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ratchi Bimal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…tory period makes such assessment invalid and bad in law:- i) Mrs. C. Malathy vs. ITO (2004) 89 TTJ 938 (Chennai); ii) B.D. Gupta vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ 915 (Agra); iii) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC); iv) Raj Kumar Chawla vs. ITO (2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del-Trib); v) ACIT vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (2015) 379 ITR 14 (All); vi) CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2005) 281 ITR 444 (Mad); vii) ITO vs. DLG Enterprises (2011) 53 DTR 65 (Lkw-Trib); viii) ACIT vs. Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2015) 128 DTR 136 (Mum-Trib); ix) Alpine Electronics Asia (P) Ltd. vs. DGIT (2012) 341 ITR 247 (…

TODAY REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4029/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2011-12 TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD., ITO, WARD 25(3), NEW DELHI C-28, G.F., PANCHSHEEL VS. ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AACCT8999G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-28), New Delhi. 2. The facts relating…

TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4028/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2010-11 TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD., ITO, WARD 25(3), C-28, G.F., PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE, VS. NEW DELHI NEW DELHI – 110 017 (PAN: AACCT8999G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-28), New Delhi. 2. The facts relating t…

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…4. The AO, on the compliance of the notice u/s. 148(1) by filing return within time, as prescribed thereby, by the assesse, may either proceed to verify the said return or accept it as such, even as explained by the Tribunal in Raj Kumar Chawala v. ITO [2005] 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB), also relied upon by the assessee. In case he wishes to examine the said return, he has to issue and serve a notice u/s. 143(2). This is in 6 Major Singh v. ITO view of, even as explained in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the procedure of assessment to be adopted qua a return u/s. 158BC is to be, so far as may be, the same as qua a return u/s.…

M/S. MAA SARASWATI MANDIR NYAS,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 3514/DEL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: --------

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: -------- M/s Maa Saraswati Mandir Nyas, CIT(E), C/o M/s RRA Taxindia, C.R. Building, vs D-28, South Extension, 4th Floor, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Sector-17E, Chandigarh-160017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 26.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24.07.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This app…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2