NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

245C and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub- section (2) of that section; or xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132 (1) of the act. 6. For A Y 2005-06, assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,244,410/– on 30/10/2005 u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 13/4/2011. In response to that notice assessee filed a same return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132 (1) of the act. 6. For A Y 2005-06, assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,244,410/– on 30/10/2005 u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 13/4/2011. In response to that notice assessee filed a same return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132 (1) of the act. 6. For A Y 2005-06, assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,244,410/– on 30/10/2005 u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 13/4/2011. In response to that notice assessee filed a same return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132 (1) of the act. 6. For A Y 2005-06, assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,244,410/– on 30/10/2005 u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 13/4/2011. In response to that notice assessee filed a same return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 132 (1) of the act. 6. For A Y 2005-06, assessee has filed return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,244,410/– on 30/10/2005 u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Therefore, notice u/s 153A of the income tax act was issued to the assessee on 13/4/2011. In response to that notice assessee filed a same return

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

245C(1) of the Act stating that this income was earned from the business of meat. 42. Since there was complexity in accounts due to volume and multiplicity of transactions and specialized nature of business which created doubt towards the correctness and truthfulness of accounts and financial results declared by the assessee, the AO, after obtaining approval of the PCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

245C(1) of the Act stating that this income was earned from the business of meat. 42. Since there was complexity in accounts due to volume and multiplicity of transactions and specialized nature of business which created doubt towards the correctness and truthfulness of accounts and financial results declared by the assessee, the AO, after obtaining approval of the PCIT

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

245C(1) of the Act stating that this income was earned from the business of meat. 42. Since there was complexity in accounts due to volume and multiplicity of transactions and specialized nature of business which created doubt towards the correctness and truthfulness of accounts and financial results declared by the assessee, the AO, after obtaining approval of the PCIT

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 132(1) of the Act. For AY 2010-11, Notice u/s 153 A was issued . In response to Notice u/s 153A issued by the ld. AO, the assessee company filed the return of income on 09/09/2011 declaring income of Rs. 10,81,28,140/-, The ld. AO completed the assessment at income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 132(1) of the Act. For AY 2010-11, Notice u/s 153 A was issued . In response to Notice u/s 153A issued by the ld. AO, the assessee company filed the return of income on 09/09/2011 declaring income of Rs. 10,81,28,140/-, The ld. AO completed the assessment at income

GUNJAN GARG,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase of rights of Vimal brand same arguments were raised. Though, assessee also explained these issues. 9. Assessee also submitted that that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 has already been admitted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245C (1)/245D (1) vide order dated 18/12/2019 and therefore the proceedings before the learned

MUKESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase of rights of Vimal brand same arguments were raised. Though, assessee also explained these issues. 9. Assessee also submitted that that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 has already been admitted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245C (1)/245D (1) vide order dated 18/12/2019 and therefore the proceedings before the learned

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

245C of the Act on such terms and conditions as contained in the circular. In our opinion, it is for this purpose that s. 245F of the Act has empowered the Settlement Commission to exercise the power of an IT authority under the Act. We must clarify here that while exercising the power derived under the circulars of the board

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LIPI FINSTOCK LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Settlement Commission has not admitted the application of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee does not qualify as a “related” person to the “specified person”. The A.O. also made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of additional income reflected in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement

PARKASH SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 18, NEW DELHI

245C(1) on\n20.12.2019 ollering additional Income of Rs.34,07,00,000/- before the Commission. The noplication wus\nallowed to be proceeded with vile order uis.245D(1) of the Act dated 08.01.2020. Subsequently, the\napplication was held as 'not invalid" by the Commission vide order u/s.245D(2C) dated 21.02.2020.\n1.2\nA search/survey u/s.132/133A of the Act was carind

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. R B FARMS AND ESTATES PVT. LTD.

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

245C of the Act, inter alia, surrendering the said amount to tax. However, the AO did not accept the said contention as on the date of the passing of the assessment order, the application filed by the AMPPL had not been accepted by the ITSC. Accordingly, the AO framed the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 under Section 153A read with Section

SURYA AGROTECH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

purchased back even at a loss, share transactions in question were to be regarded as bogus and, thus, amount received from said transactions was to be added to assesee's taxable income under section 68 It was held as follows: “53. 53. 53. In contrast to the above judgments, in the present 53. case, the Assessee is a private limited