“reasons recorded”

Sh. Raghubir Prasad Gupta, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

Appeal is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment which was without providing the reasons recorded, in violation of the law and in violation the principles of natural justice. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Navodaya Castles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

effected on 25.03.2009. 7. Assessee preferred that return filed u/s 139(1) be treated as reply to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Reasons recorded by the AO were communicated to the assessee to which assessee raised objections that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessee did not contain

M/S. Bvj Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

return of income. He, therefore, issued notice for reopening of assessment. From the above, it is evident that the information mentioned in the reasons recorded is only general in nature i.e., it gives the details of cheques received by the assessee, bank account number of the assessee where cheques ... bank details of the persons who gave the cheques. However, the nature of the amount received is not mentioned. In paragraph 3 of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the accommodation entry is provided in the form of credit entries, share capital, gift, sale consideration etc. However

M/S. Bvj Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & G.D. Agrawal & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

return of income. He, therefore, issued notice for reopening of assessment. From the above, it is evident that the information mentioned in the reasons recorded is only general in nature i.e., it gives the details of cheques received by the assessee, bank account number of the assessee where cheques ... bank details of the persons who gave the cheques. However, the nature of the amount received is not mentioned. In paragraph 3 of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the accommodation entry is provided in the form of credit entries, share capital, gift, sale consideration etc. However

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

cost of spares and accessories. The AO, after detailed discussion, disallowed the assessee’s entire claim of Rs. 458.13 lakhs. In brief the reasons recorded by AO were as under: i. The assessee was not contesting the issue that the writting off had not been done on the basis

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

cost of spares and accessories. The AO, after detailed discussion, disallowed the assessee’s entire claim of Rs. 458.13 lakhs. In brief the reasons recorded by AO were as under: i. The assessee was not contesting the issue that the writting off had not been done on the basis

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

cost of spares and accessories. The AO, after detailed discussion, disallowed the assessee’s entire claim of Rs. 458.13 lakhs. In brief the reasons recorded by AO were as under: i. The assessee was not contesting the issue that the writting off had not been done on the basis

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

cost of spares and accessories. The AO, after detailed discussion, disallowed the assessee’s entire claim of Rs. 458.13 lakhs. In brief the reasons recorded by AO were as under: i. The assessee was not contesting the issue that the writting off had not been done on the basis

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result this ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

cost of spares and accessories. The AO, after detailed discussion, disallowed the assessee’s entire claim of Rs. 458.13 lakhs. In brief the reasons recorded by AO were as under: i. The assessee was not contesting the issue that the writting off had not been done on the basis

Ion Geophysical Corporation (Formerly Known As Input Output Inc.), Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

treated as return in response to notice u/s 148. 2.5. The AO after disposing off the assessee’s objections in regard to the reasons recorded, analyzed the contract and concluded that it was a composite contract given on trunkey basis and the off shore supply of the equipment was nothing

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Ion Geophysical Corporation, Gurgaon

In the result ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Stay No. 206/Del/2016 ( In Ita No. 1607/Del/2015) Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 & Asstt. Yr. 2008-09 Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. Dcit Circle-2, (Formerly Known As Dehradun. “Input Output Inc.) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells, 7Th Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabci 6763 Q & Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Dcit Circle-2, Vs. Ion Geophysical Corporation (Appellant) ( Respondent)

treated as return in response to notice u/s 148. 2.5. The AO after disposing off the assessee’s objections in regard to the reasons recorded, analyzed the contract and concluded that it was a composite contract given on trunkey basis and the off shore supply of the equipment was nothing

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

Accordingly appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

limitation. The Ld. AO submitted that the said reassessment order needs to be quashed. 4.2 He submitted that in the assessee’s case the reasons recorded state, that income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Income Tax Officer, Ward - Vs. M/S. Randeep Investment 15(2), New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., 202, Mohan Place, Local Shopping Complex, C- Block, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaccr0988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing 11.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01/01/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2004-05 Raising The Following Grounds: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 45,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act Ignoring The Fact That As Per The Information Received From The Investigation Wing Of The Department, The Said Entities Are 2 Ay: 2004-05 Doing No Business Except To Provide Accommodation Entries On Commission Basis. Ii. The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add Any Fresh Grounds Of Appeal And/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.

without jurisdiction before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was contended by the assessee that 3 AY: 2004-05 in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it was mentioned that the assessee had taken accommodation entries of Rs. 11,61,425/- from two parties, namely ... that the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on account of the alleged accommodation entries received from the parties as alleged in the reasons recorded and, therefore, the Assessing Officer did not continue to possess the jurisdiction to tax any other income, which came to the notice subsequently

Remarkable Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

other hand, learned Sr. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the lower authorities, however, could not controvert that the reasons recorded in the instant case are identical to the reasons recorded in the cases before the Tribunal (supra) relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative. 7. We have heard ... assessee in the case of sister concerns of the assessee company. We find that in the case of M/s. Sunaina Towers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), reasons recorded have been reproduced in para 7 of the order, which are as under: “7. Now, we have to examine the reasons recorded