SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

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

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

M3M INDIA HOLDINGS,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Ground No.3 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

153B(l)(b) of the Act, is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law. 1.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessment having been completed without issuance and service of valid notice under section 143(2) of the Act, is illegal and bad in law. 1.3. That the CIT(A) erred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

section 153D of the Act has not been satisfied in both the cases and accordingly we hold that the all assessment orders are vitiated and thus same are void being bad in law. We, accordingly set aside the impugned orders of lower authorities and quash the assessment orders by allowing additional ground of the assessees in all appeals filed

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)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

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)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

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)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

VINOD KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Capital Gain, whereas in the Cross Objection the assessee has challenged the very validity of assessment framed u/s.153B(1)/143(3) on the following grounds: “1. The order of AO as sustained by the CIT (A) is bad in law. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Assessment order passed under section 153B(1)(b

ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GOLD CAUSE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is contrary to provisions of sections 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.” 4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee raised the legal ground being Ground

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. SH. VINOD KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Capital Gain, whereas in the Cross Objection the assessee has challenged the very validity of assessment framed u/s.153B(1)/143(3) on the following grounds: “1. The order of AO as sustained by the CIT (A) is bad in law. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Assessment order passed under section 153B(1)(b

MANOJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamanoj Kumar Chaudhary, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, B – 30, Sector Gamma – 1, Noida. Greater Noida – 201 306 (U.P.). (Pan :Adjpc6140K)

capital gain despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CITA) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.15,60,782/- on account of exempt income despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

MANOJ KUMAR HUF,GREATER NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamanoj Kumar Chaudhary, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, B – 30, Sector Gamma – 1, Noida. Greater Noida – 201 306 (U.P.). (Pan :Adjpc6140K)

capital gain despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CITA) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.15,60,782/- on account of exempt income despite assessee fulfilling the burden cast on him. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case