COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

1)(a) of the Act. 2015:DHC:7044-DB ITA Nos. 707, 709 and 713 of 2014 Page 17 of 26 26. In the High Court the question was whether the CIT could invoke the power under Section 263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing (supra) answered the question

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

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

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

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

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

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

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

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) and made addition of INR 97,37,300/ and made addition of INR 97,37,300/- at estimated sale at estimated sale consideration based on kachchi parchi consideration based on kachchi parchi. The income was accordingly . The income was accordingly, assessed at INR 1,04,36,200/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para

JCIT(OSD), JHANDEWALAN vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL, FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljcit (Osd), Jhandewalan, Vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Delhi H.No. 467, Sector-21-A, Fardidabad, Haryana (Pan: Aagpa1441D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv., Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

capital gains. Second, the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, being an unabated year, no proceeding under section 153C of the Act would be initiated without any incriminating material found/seized. Third, as per the satisfaction note, the purported 5 incriminating documents of cash transactions relate to AY 2016-17 and therefore, no proceeding under section 153C

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

153A of the Act, revealed that assessee had declared additional income of Rs.19,18,910/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain arisen on sale of shares of M/s Sapbelle Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted narrated copy of the bank statement and from the narration of the transactions

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

153A of the Act, revealed that assessee had declared additional income of Rs.19,18,910/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain arisen on sale of shares of M/s Sapbelle Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted narrated copy of the bank statement and from the narration of the transactions

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

153A of the Act, revealed that assessee had declared additional income of Rs.19,18,910/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain arisen on sale of shares of M/s Sapbelle Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted narrated copy of the bank statement and from the narration of the transactions

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order has been passed by an Income Tax Officer, who admittedly is an officer below the rank of joint Commissioner; therefore, the provisions of section 153D of the Act would be applicable. Section 153D starts with the words "No order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order has been passed by an Income Tax Officer, who admittedly is an officer below the rank of joint Commissioner; therefore, the provisions of section 153D of the Act would be applicable. Section 153D starts with the words "No order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order has been passed by an Income Tax Officer, who admittedly is an officer below the rank of joint Commissioner; therefore, the provisions of section 153D of the Act would be applicable. Section 153D starts with the words "No order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order has been passed by an Income Tax Officer, who admittedly is an officer below the rank of joint Commissioner; therefore, the provisions of section 153D of the Act would be applicable. Section 153D starts with the words "No order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. AMOLAK SINGH BHATIA, BILASPUR

In the result, all the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed as above and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as infructuous

1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order has been passed by an Income Tax Officer, who admittedly is an officer below the rank of joint Commissioner; therefore, the provisions of section 153D of the Act would be applicable. Section 153D starts with the words "No order

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

153A or sub-\nsection (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment,\nwhichever is earlier.]\n(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in\nquestion the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing\nOfficer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the\nmatter for determination under