COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 153C and there also in cases of those companies in satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C, no reference is made to subject allegations extracted from search proceedings on Pradeep Kumar Jindal which shows present action in assessee’s case is discriminatory and suffers from non application of mind. 2. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

153C were not available to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer however independently met the prerequisites for I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 10 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147. Therefore, at the time of issuance of notice under Section 147, there was no statutory embargo for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 6.3 The ld. counsel