ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 147 is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Since, the Id. CIT(A) has not addressed the case of the assessee from this angle, therefore, his finding on the issue of validity of reassessment proceedings is incorrect and not in accordance with law. We, therefore, hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated after a period

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

Section 147, the Assessing Officer had, by his order dated 16.03.2000, disallowed the whole deduction of ` 3306.69 lakhs 2010:DHC:6282-DB December

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Section ('U/s' for short) 143(3) of Income\nTax Act ('IT Act' for short) was passed on 09.02.2011 wherein the only addition made\nby the Assessing Officer ('AO', for short) to the return income (Rs.11,15,33,024/-)\nwas disallowance of Rs.1,06,500/- out of guest house rent amounting to Rs.\n4,26,000/-. Thereafter, Asstt. Commissioner of Income

SMT. CHAYA SINHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shria.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and reopening of the case is bad in law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O. and without recording valid reasons in the eyes of law and the same is barred by limitation. Page 2 of 11 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

147 of the Act vide order dated 26.3.2014. Against the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 14.7.2015 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by treating the reassessment proceedings as bad in law and treated the assessment order of the AO as null and void. Aggrieved with the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 of the LT. Act applies the test of "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" to all assessee-types, including companies. Where a company maintains vehicles or telephones that are partly for personal use by directors/officers, the personal-use component is not laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" and is hence disallowable. Established

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 of the LT. Act applies the test of "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" to all assessee-types, including companies. Where a company maintains vehicles or telephones that are partly for personal use by directors/officers, the personal-use component is not laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" and is hence disallowable. Established

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 37 of the LT. Act applies the test of "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" to all assessee-types, including companies. Where a company maintains vehicles or telephones that are partly for personal use by directors/officers, the personal-use component is not laid out "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" and is hence disallowable. Established

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

147 read with Section 148 of the Act incorporated a caveat; which is as to how a reasonable man would view the articulated reasons (as prescribed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 148) which formed the basis of a notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. In our view this by itself would suffice in declaring the proceedings

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

section 147 of the Act as long as the material are relevant and is capable of giving prima facie belief to a person instructed in law. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). We further observe that Assessing Officer

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

section 147 of the Act as long as the material are relevant and is capable of giving prima facie belief to a person instructed in law. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC). We further observe that Assessing Officer

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to section 147

SURYA JYOTI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,46,797/-, vide order dated 30/6/2014. However, no addition was made on account of alleged accommodation entry of Rs. 1 crore. 5 I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017 6. Later on, Ld. Pr. CIT in his revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 from the examination of records before him, noted that though the assessment was reopened under section

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

147(b) of the Act.” 17. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Consolidated Photo and Finvest Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 281 ITR 391 holding that it makes no difference as to whether the material is unearthed from the existing record. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

section 14A. Interest Expenditure [Disallowance under Rule 8D(ii)l The assessee is a cash rich company, which does not borrow funds for making investment. The marginal interest expenditure of Rs. 11.82 crores was incurred on other temporary loans/dealers deposit, having nexus with main business function. Further, no direct nexus of interest expenditure with investments or earning of dividend income

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets