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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) dated 22.08.2017 by the ITO, Ward 2(3), Gurgaon whereby and where under the assessee 2 has been granted part relief on account of claim under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

143(2) of the Act before passing the assessment order. 9. On merits, the record reveals that the AO has made an addition under Section 68 and disallowance

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

143 (1) (a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 142 – (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

143 (1) (a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 142 – (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

143 (1) (a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-Section (1) of Section 142 – (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

143(3)- However, pursuant to reassessment notice, which was dropped due to technical reasons, and later notice was issued and assessments were taken up afresh-After considering submissions of assessee and documents produced in reassessment proceedings, AO added back a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000-CIT(A) held against assessee 89 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India

UTTAM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D Rs.3,03,571. 5. The assessment order so passed was challenged in appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief by deleting the addition of Rs.19,98,832. 6. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, in terms with section 143(2

SH. DHIRENDRA NATH TRIVEDY,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Dcit, Circle-1, C-4014, Gaur Green City, Vs. Ghaziabad Vaibhav Kahdn, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Accpt8767F) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

143(2) of the Act was issued and served by the prescribed authority and, in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable and, therefore unsustainable. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 13,70,000/- on account of unexplained credits/ loans received

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Further with respect to the 2nd search carried on the assessee on 19/1/2009, the assessment under section 153A was framed. Original assessment under section 153A was passed on 26/12/2007 in consequence to the search carried out on Surya Vikas group on 1/9/2005. Therefore, the present assessment year is a completed assessment year

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Further with respect to the 2nd search carried on the assessee on 19/1/2009, the assessment under section 153A was framed. Original assessment under section 153A was passed on 26/12/2007 in consequence to the search carried out on Surya Vikas group on 1/9/2005. Therefore, the present assessment year is a completed assessment year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Further with respect to the 2nd search carried on the assessee on 19/1/2009, the assessment under section 153A was framed. Original assessment under section 153A was passed on 26/12/2007 in consequence to the search carried out on Surya Vikas group on 1/9/2005. Therefore, the present assessment year is a completed assessment year

HARVINDER SINGH JAGGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Harvinder Singh Jaggi, D- Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of 13B, East Of Kailash, New Delhi- Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Civic 110065, Centre, New Delhi-110002 (Pan: Aaepj2007N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(2) was a valid notice despite the fact that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(4), was not “the Assessing Officer” in terms of the jurisdiction order no. Addl.CIT/R-19/2005-06/356 dated 31.03.2006. 2 ITA No. 672/Del/2013, AY: 2007-08 Harvinder Singh Jaggi 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer passed

POORAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to your case for A.Y 2007-08 is not available with original case record.” 4. The assessee is an individual deriving income from agriculture and long term capital gain. Return declaring income at Rs.79,370/- along with agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000/- was filed on 30/9/2008. Subsequently

M/S. POORAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to your case for A.Y 2007-08 is not available with original case record.” 4. The assessee is an individual deriving income from agriculture and long term capital gain. Return declaring income at Rs.79,370/- along with agricultural income of Rs.3,50,000/- was filed on 30/9/2008. Subsequently

ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 30, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

143(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2018 was barred by limitation is misplaced and is legally not tenable. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 7. With regard to addition of Rs.21.37 crores, ld. CIT (A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee partially by observing as under :- “11.4 I have carefully examined the facts of the case, observations

ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD., KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

143/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). In light of the settled legal position the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) is directed to be deleted. In the result, the assessee succeeds on ground no. 1 of the appeal. Consultancy charges paid to Shiva Industries and Holdings Ltd. held as capital in nature:- 41. The assessee had paid Rs.46