ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D (4) conclusive in respect of matters covered by it and these findings are not liable to be reopened or reviewed either in proceeding under this Act or in any other proceedings. 5b That on the facts of the case

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is applicable in this case. As per assessment order incriminating material was seized from the premises of Mr. R.K. Kedia which evidenced that unaccounted cash (earned through purchase and sale of gold) of the assessee was utilised for obtaining accommodation entries of bogus

SUNIL SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

purchase of shares carried out through the broker Shri S.S. Mehta enabled the Assessing Officer to hold the capital gain as bogus. The information from investigation wing that sale was bogus was not communicated to appellant when notice under s. 148 was issued. The return filed 'under section 148 was not filed after 'detection'. The return of income so filed

RAJENDRA BHANDARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2006-07 Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Alok Bhandari, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. Pan: Agmpb 5584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 Rajendra Bhandari, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. Pan: Agmpb 5581F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Shri R.S. Ahuja, C.A.. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani, Sr.D.R.

purchase of shares carried out through the broker Shri S.S. Mehta enabled the Assessing Officer to hold the capital gain as bogus. The information from investigation wing that sale was bogus was not communicated to appellant when notice under s.148 was issued. The return filed 'under section 148 was not filed after 'detection'. The return of income so filed

ALOK BHANDARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2006-07 Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Alok Bhandari, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. Pan: Agmpb 5584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 Rajendra Bhandari, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. Pan: Agmpb 5581F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Shri R.S. Ahuja, C.A.. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani, Sr.D.R.

purchase of shares carried out through the broker Shri S.S. Mehta enabled the Assessing Officer to hold the capital gain as bogus. The information from investigation wing that sale was bogus was not communicated to appellant when notice under s.148 was issued. The return filed 'under section 148 was not filed after 'detection'. The return of income so filed

DCIT, DELHI vs. GIRDHARI LAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., PUNJAB

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Vs. Girdhari Lal Construction Room No. 320, Ara Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Jhandewalan 2899, D5, B Aggarwal Extension, Colony , Bathinda H.O., New Delhi – 110055 Bathinda, 151001 Punjab "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg9035B Appellant .. Respondent

section 69A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the finding of AO during assessment proceedings wherein the assessee falled to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions of Rs. 12,70,19,059/-. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act (that too on protective basis in the case of Sanjay Dalmia). This means that the AO has ignored the alleged default committed earlier and the information desired by the said notice did not have any bearing on the information relied in the assessment made. It was held

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, NEW DELHI vs. MANUVEL MEZHUKANAL, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Manuvel Mezhukanal, Central Circle-01, 209-10, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Ina Market, New Delhi. Pan: Ablpv5671Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.01.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10504/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 53(1), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

5A mentioned (supra). To reject the cash sales, some mistakes in the sales invoices, stock movement or purchases should have been identified. As no mistakes in the stock ledger or stock movement were pointed out by the AO, it cannot be held that the cash sales made by the appellant were manipulated/or bogus. 9.6 The appellant relied on the decision

RAMESH CHAND vs. ITO WARD-I,,

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 145 and that too without any basis, material or evidence and by recording incorrect facts and findings and that too without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in making