“Commissioner (Appeals)”

ACIT, CC- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Nikki Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date ... deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified and same was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 5] 31 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals

Arjun Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Rs.1,00,000/- iii. Interest income of Rs.5,683/-. 3. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, by the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed ... submitted by the assessee that after obtaining 3 certified copy of the assessment order, the appeal was filed. It appears, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay on the reasoning that no evidence was brought on record by the assessee to demonstrate that the assessment order

JCIT, Special, Range-1, New Delhi vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2003-04

upward adjustment to the ALP. 5. The assessee contested the selection of certain comparables by the TPO in appeal preferred before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding assessee’s appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2002-03, directed ... course, the assessee also preferred an appeal before 4 [JCIT Vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.] this Tribunal, challenging some other observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Be that as it may, while deciding both the appeals, the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 4240/Del/2009 and 4295/Del/2009 dated 18th May, 2012, upheld

Chander Mohan Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 61(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

establish on record that Ms. Anjali lall had the required technical qualification to do the work. Though, the assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful. 4. Drawing our attention to section 40A(2) of the Act, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the Assessing Officer ... under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful. 11. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted, out of the total disallowance of Rs.65,94,145/-, the payment made

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

prosecution by the assessee. Learned first appellate authority cannot ignore either the procedure for disposal of appeal prescribed u/s. 250 or the powers of commissioner (Appeals) prescribed u/s. 251 of the Act. Learned CIT(A) has no power to dismiss assessee’s appeals in limine for non- prosecution without deciding

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

prosecution by the assessee. Learned first appellate authority cannot ignore either the procedure for disposal of appeal prescribed u/s. 250 or the powers of commissioner (Appeals) prescribed u/s. 251 of the Act. Learned CIT(A) has no power to dismiss assessee’s appeals in limine for non- prosecution without deciding

Rakesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

prosecution by the assessee. Learned first appellate authority cannot ignore either the procedure for disposal of appeal prescribed u/s. 250 or the powers of commissioner (Appeals) prescribed u/s. 251 of the Act. Learned CIT(A) has no power to dismiss assessee’s appeals in limine for non- prosecution without deciding

Ramesh Chand Investment & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2004-05 Ramesh Chand Investment & Vs. Acit, Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Circle-21(2), 69/2A, Najafgarh Road Industrial New Delhi. Area, New Delhi. Pan:Aaccr3585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Anilgandhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St March,2013 Of The Cit(A)-18, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing. No Application For Adjournment Of Hearing Has Been Filed. A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Entries Shows That No One Was Appearing On The Previous Occasions. Although Notices Have Been Sent By The Registry Through Rpad, Every Time The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authorities With The Remark ‘No Such Person In The Address.’ The Assessee Has Also Not Taken Any Step To Intimate The Change Of Address, If Any. Under These Circumstances, We Deem It Proper To Decide The Appeal On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

company's books as deposits made against bookings for flats in the scheme of the company but which were cancelled by the parties. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. On further appeal: _Held,_ dismissing the appeal, (i) that as no shares ... assessees did not contend that even if their explanation was not satisfactory the amounts were not of the nature of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the assessment. On further appeal, there was a difference of opinion between the two Members of the Appellate Tribunal and the matter was referred

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Bombardier (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year: 2011-12

India based on number of days. 5. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) contesting the decision of AO regarding existence of service PE as well as attribution of profit to the PE. After considering the submissions of the assessee, leaned Commissioner (Appeals ... year, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case, as referred to above, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds raised. 9. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court

Hitrac Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hitrac Manpower Services Dcit Circle – 2 (1) Pvt Ltd. 85, Link Road, Vs Gurgaon Bhim Nagar, Gurgaon- 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Main ground of appeal is against the adoption of 4% rate of net profit by the Ld. AO which was upheld by the commissioner Appeals. During the appeal proceedings the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-l has relied on the assessing officer's decision of adopting 4% rate of net profit ... same was followed by his predecessor, which was bad in law and against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Commissioner (Appeals)-l rejected the appeal vide order dated 16.12.2015 on the ground reproduced below: "It is a fact on record that the additions made by AO were an agreed