PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

1) of the IT Act as that was made for an\n assessment year beyond the stipulated period as laid down under\nthe applicable provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the Act.\n9.\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on\nfacts in not considering the various submissions made by the\nassessee and material evidences placed

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132. The assessee contends that before granting previous approval under section 158BG for an order of assessment made under section 158BC, the Joint Commissioner should have given a hearing to the assessee. It is submitted that the power to grant previous approval under section 158BG is an amalgam of appellate and revisional power and therefore, the right to a hearing

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after allowing an opportunity to the Appellant. Thereafter, the CIT (A) passed an order dated 30th January 2004 sustaining some of the additions made by the AO. 13. The Assessee also filed an application before the CIT (A) under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the order dated 30th

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

132 ITR 559 (SC). Secondly, it is submitted that in terms of Section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the appellant-assessee does not have any title over the reserve and, therefore, it is a case of diversion of income at source. Reliance is placed upon several decisions relating to Molasses Storage Fund, namely

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

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

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI vs. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Dcit, Central Circle-17, Vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Delhi Gokhley Marg Room No. 244, Ara Lucknow Centre, Jhandewalan Uttar Pradesh-226001 Extension, New Delhi

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that in this case, the assessee filed his original return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 93,64,400/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI, DELHI vs. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Dcit, Central Circle-17, Vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Delhi Gokhley Marg Room No. 244, Ara Lucknow Centre, Jhandewalan Uttar Pradesh-226001 Extension, New Delhi

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that in this case, the assessee filed his original return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 93,64,400/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case