ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reopen the case of the assessee. Identical issue has been dealt with the honourable Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala V DCIT [2017]80 taxmann.com 102(Delhi)/ [2016] 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/ [2016] 286 CTR 474 (Delhi). The honourable High Court after considering all the judicial precedents available on the issue held as Under:- Page 21 of 53 “Legislative

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reopen the case of the assessee. Identical issue has been dealt with the honourable Delhi High Court in Indu Lata Rangwala V DCIT [2017]80 taxmann.com 102(Delhi)/ [2016] 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/ [2016] 286 CTR 474 (Delhi). The honourable High Court after considering all the judicial precedents available on the issue held as Under:- Page 21 of 53 “Legislative

M/S vs. R ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHIVS.ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08

TDS had been deducted by the employer. The assessee has also made investment of Rs.10 lakhs in the purchase of Mutual Funds and deposited cash of Rs.52 lakhs in his ICICI Bank account in assessment year under appeal. Further the assessee had also made contract in commodity exchange exceeding Rs.10 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee furnished

M/S vs. R ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHIVS.ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, addition of Rs.59,50,000/- on account of cash deposit, confirming addition of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.9,85,000/- and addition of income of Rs.7,72,461/- from MCX Business. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties through video conferencing and perused

VIKAS CHOWDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

TDS had been deducted by the employer. The assessee has also made investment of Rs.10 lakhs in the purchase of Mutual Funds and deposited cash of Rs.52 lakhs in his ICICI Bank account in assessment year under appeal. Further the assessee had also made contract in commodity exchange exceeding Rs.10 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee furnished

BISHAN SHARUP GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 45(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS had been deducted by the employer. The assessee has also made investment of Rs.10 lakhs in the purchase of Mutual Funds and deposited cash of Rs.52 lakhs in his ICICI Bank account in assessment year under appeal. Further the assessee had also made contract in commodity exchange exceeding Rs.10 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee furnished

CRICKET SOUTH AFRICA (NPC),SOUTH AFRICA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

reopened the assessment for assessment year 2013-14, however, the heading of the reasons recorded refers to assessment year 2014-15. Even, the name of the assessee has been wrongly mentioned. In paragraph 3 of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has very clearly and categorically stated that, though, the assessee had filed TDS

CRICKET AUSTRALIA,AUSTRALIA vs. DCIT, INT, TAXATION CIRCLE-1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

reopened the assessment for assessment year 2013-14, however, the heading of the reasons recorded refers to assessment year 2014-15. Even, the name of the assessee has been wrongly mentioned. In a paragraph 3 of the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has very clearly and categorically stated that, though, the assessee had filed TDS

NATRAJAN MONIE,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TDS had been deducted by the employer. The assessee has also made investment of Rs.10 lakhs in the purchase of Mutual Funds and deposited cash of Rs.52 lakhs in his ICICI Bank account in assessment year under appeal. Further the assessee had also made contract in commodity exchange exceeding Rs.10 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee furnished

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

reopening of the assessment, copy of it filed at Page No. 57 of Paper Book which reads as under:- 1. Name of Assessee M/s ULO Systems LLC 2. Address C/o SR Batliboi & Co. Golf View, Corporate Towers B, Sector 42, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. PA/GIR No. AAACU5048F 4. Status Company 5. Assessment Year 2005-06 6. Whether R/NR/NOR Non Resident REASONS

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

reopening of the assessment, copy of it filed at Page No. 57 of Paper Book which reads as under:- 1. Name of Assessee M/s ULO Systems LLC 2. Address C/o SR Batliboi & Co. Golf View, Corporate Towers B, Sector 42, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3. PA/GIR No. AAACU5048F 4. Status Company 5. Assessment Year 2005-06 6. Whether R/NR/NOR Non Resident REASONS

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ZECO AIRCON LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2005-06 Dcit, Circle- 18(1), Zeco Aircon Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Dda, New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Vs. Near Sindhi School, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi.

reopening the assessment and accordingly the action of the AO is confirmed.” 6. He, however, deleted the addition of Rs.2 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 by observing as under :- “4.3 I have considered the order of the AO and the submissions of the assessee and I find considerable merit in the submissions of the assessee

ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Cross Objections of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 5384 & 5385/िद"ी/2017(िन.व. 2007-08 & 2008-09)

reopening. The same are as under:- “Reasons for issue of Notice U/S 148 for the A.Y. 2007-08 in the case of M/S. Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd The assessee company filed its return of income for the AY. 2007-08 on 31,10,2007 declaring a loss of Rs.32,72,39,840/- The return was processed

AFZAR AHMAD KHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 47(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS at the rate of 10%, whereas, the income earned by the assessee was liable to be taxed at the rate of 30%, the Assessing Officer reopened

RAJAT ALLOYS (P) LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act is not the subject matter of addition in 13 ITA No.9087/Del./2019 the assessment order, as, the Assessing Officer has added a completely different item of income i.e. loan availed of Rs.40,00,000. For this reason also, the addition made is unsustainable. Even otherwise also, I am satisfied that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BARISTA COFFEE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Barista Coffee Company Ltd, Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, Shop No. 55, Community Centre, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Basant Lok Market, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aabcb798A (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS with the receipt. This fact has not been disputed by the revenue that both these claims have been examined by the assessing officer during the original assessment proceedings which culminated into an assessment under section 143 (3) dated 20/03/2006. On reading of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

reopening the case was served on 2nd April, 2013 well after the expiry of 4 years. The case of the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded was that:- "Assessment in this case was completed on 24.12.2008 at total income of Rs.6,94,18,900/-. From the perusal of the case records it revealed that as per schedule 16 to Profit

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. PAVELJEET SINGH RUPPAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS granted to the assessee and justified and second issue was accepted. However, after 3½ years, in so far as disallowance of interest of Rs.1,05,13,743/- as proposed in the audit objection and also raised by the Assessing Officer in the proceedings u/s.154, the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen

CHAMPION BUILDER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

reopening are vague and they are only based on the report from DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata on the basis of the search and seizure action in the case of Banka Group conducted on 2 I.T.A.Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 21/05/2018, wherein Shri Mukesh Banka was said to have been providing accommodation entries. Ld. Counsel submits that the reasons recorded