PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

SHRI BALAJI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5744/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ita No. 5745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 5752/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Balaji (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Vpo Badshahpur, Near Arya Samaj Central Circle-1, Mandir, Gurgaon-122017 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs5328Q Assessee By: Sh. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 5744, 5745 & 5752/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Orders Dated 21St & 22Nd October, 2024 Passed In Case Nos. 10964/2018-19, 10827/2019-20 & 10090/2020-21, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

SHRI BALAJI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5744/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ita No. 5745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 5752/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Balaji (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Vpo Badshahpur, Near Arya Samaj Central Circle-1, Mandir, Gurgaon-122017 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs5328Q Assessee By: Sh. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 5744, 5745 & 5752/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Orders Dated 21St & 22Nd October, 2024 Passed In Case Nos. 10964/2018-19, 10827/2019-20 & 10090/2020-21, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

SHRI BALAJI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5744/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ita No. 5745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 5752/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Balaji (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Vpo Badshahpur, Near Arya Samaj Central Circle-1, Mandir, Gurgaon-122017 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs5328Q Assessee By: Sh. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 5744, 5745 & 5752/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Orders Dated 21St & 22Nd October, 2024 Passed In Case Nos. 10964/2018-19, 10827/2019-20 & 10090/2020-21, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry provider cannot be the basis for making additions in assessment completed u/S. 153A in the case of beneficiary ignoring the vital fact that there was a common search u/s 132 conducted on the same day in both the cases of the entry provider

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

158B(b) of the Act. 44. Mr Sawhney’s contention that the fact that the Assessee had not filed its return would render the entire surpluses as disclosed in its books as undisclosed income is not sustainable. According to the Assessee its income was entirely exempt under Section 10(22) of the Act and hence it was not required

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -10(1), NEW DELHI vs. H B LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Joint Commissioner Of Vs H B Leasing & Finance Income Tax, (Osd), Company Ltd. Circle 10(1), C. R. Building, H-72, Connaught Circus, I. P. Estate, Delhi Connaught Place, Delhi Pan:Aaach0713N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 94/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 1245/Del/2025 A.Y. 1988-89) H B Leasing & Finance Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Company Ltd. Tax, Osd, H-72, Connaught Circus, Circle 10(1) Connaught Place, Delhi C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Pan:Aaach0713N Delhi

section 158BC of the Act. It is a matter of record that the books of accounts were produced not only in the original block assessment proceedings, but were also furnished in the regular assessment proceedings as is evident from various assessment orders relating to regular assessment proceedings. As a matter of fact, the AO has himself attached the chart showing

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain and non disclosure of source of investment , the AO has no authority available in law to pass order holding that the income had escaped assessment following as “adventure in nature of trade”. 8.1 Similarly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT 473 ITR 595 and Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius vs ACIT