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

153C(1) of IT Act and the assessment was not an abated assessment. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/ The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/ under the head long term capital gain

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

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

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 153C of the Act. Accordingly, notices u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2015-16 to 2020-21 and notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2021-22 are being issued.” 14. It is found that during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the sale of loose diamonds and the gain arises from it, was duly disclosed

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 153C of the Act. Accordingly, notices u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2015-16 to 2020-21 and notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2021-22 are being issued.” 14. It is found that during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the sale of loose diamonds and the gain arises from it, was duly disclosed

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 153C of the Act. Accordingly, notices u/s 153C of the Act for AY 2015-16 to 2020-21 and notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2021-22 are being issued.” 14. It is found that during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the sale of loose diamonds and the gain arises from it, was duly disclosed

HARISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Harish Kumar Agrawal, 1080, Arya Nagar, Gali No. 3, Central Circle-3, Kosi Kalan, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aawpa1906F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.M. Agrawal, Ca Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr)

2 | P a g e indicating him to have paid/received cash payments in immovable property transactions. That being the case, this tribunal in other connected group cases ITA No. 2806/Del/2024 (Renu Singh Vs. ACIT) & 2810/Del/2024 (Pradeep Singh Vs. ACIT) decided on 25th November, 2024 has concluded that such a satisfaction is not sustainable in law, as under: “8. When

MR. ABHISHEK CHHABRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Harish Kumar Agrawal, 1080, Arya Nagar, Gali No. 3, Central Circle-3, Kosi Kalan, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aawpa1906F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.M. Agrawal, Ca Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr)

2 | P a g e indicating him to have paid/received cash payments in immovable property transactions. That being the case, this tribunal in other connected group cases ITA No. 2806/Del/2024 (Renu Singh Vs. ACIT) & 2810/Del/2024 (Pradeep Singh Vs. ACIT) decided on 25th November, 2024 has concluded that such a satisfaction is not sustainable in law, as under: “8. When

RENU JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, , NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Om Prakash Tantia, Vs. Dcit Plot No. 165-167, Sector-25, Central Circle – 25 Ballabgarh, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Abspt8332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nisha Jain Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Acspj6903H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Tantia Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Aafpt4583L (Appellant) (Respondent)

153C of 1961 Act 2. Total Violation of principle natural justice: That both the assessment orders of Ld AO and first appellate order of Id CIT- A are bad in law as entire asst. is framed in total violation of principle of natural justice for non confrontation of relied upon material (statements etc) and lack of cross examination being offered

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

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 sub-section (2) before the assessment

REVELATION UNIQUE RETAIL AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering the notice issued under Section 153C and consequent assessment bad in law as the satisfaction note recorded by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and void ab initio; 3. That on the facts and circumstances

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA SHARMA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering the notice issued under Section 153C and consequent assessment bad in law as the satisfaction note recorded by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and void ab initio; 3. That on the facts and circumstances

ANSHUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Ansul Bansal, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Tax, Circle-3, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Auqpb8298M (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering the notice issued under section 153C and consequent assessment bad in law as the satisfaction note recorded by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and void ab initio 3. That on the facts

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

capital gains etc. The assessee [Respondent before ITAT], admittedly did not file a cross appeal or cross objections under section 253(4) of the Act and sought to invoke Rule 27 to question the validity of the proceedings under Section 153C. Thus, in the above noted factual background, we have to consider whether the approach adopted by ITAT in declining