LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

149\ntaxmann.com 373) and PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta (147 taxmann.com\n288) held that this common approval granted for various assessment\nyears for various assessees is in violation of provision of section\n153D of the Act and thereby making the approval granted in a\nmechanical manner without due application of mind. Consequently\nthe assessments framed u/s 153A r.w.s 144 were quashed

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

b) of sub-section (1) of section\n12A, section 444B, section 44DA, section 50B, section\n80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section\n80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, section 115JB or\nsection115VW or to give a notice under clause (a) of\nsub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, he shall furnish\nthe same electronically

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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and 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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and 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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and 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

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the cross objections for AY 2013-14 filed by the assessee is\nallowed

149(1)(b) read with the fourth proviso to section\n153A(1) of the Act cannot be invoked and the relevant part of the order is\nreproduced as under :-\n\"16. It is apparent from the above that the AO believed that the petitioner's\nincome had escaped assessment for AY 2016-17 on essentially three grounds.\nFirst, that

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

B S,\nZafar Marg,\nNew Delhi,\nPAN: AAGPG3909G\n(Appellant)\nACIT (1)(1),\nC R Building,\nVs. ITO, I.P. Estate,\nNew Delhi\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by None\nRespondent by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing 03/02/2026\nDate of Pronouncement 06/02/2026\nORDER\nPER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, J.M. :\n1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the cross objections for AY 2013-14 filed by the assessee is allowed

149(1)(b) read with the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act cannot be invoked and the relevant part of the order is reproduced as under :- \"16. It is apparent from the above that the AO believed that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment for AY 2016-17 on essentially three grounds. First, that the petitioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

disallowance made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the captioned appeals are heard together. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of the case for Assessment Year 2011-12 are considered, which are as follows:- An assessment order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was completed against the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

disallowance made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the captioned appeals are heard together. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of the case for Assessment Year 2011-12 are considered, which are as follows:- An assessment order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was completed against the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

disallowance made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the captioned appeals are heard together. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of the case for Assessment Year 2011-12 are considered, which are as follows:- An assessment order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was completed against the Assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. APPLE COMMODITIES LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2239 & 2240/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Dcit Apple Commodities Ltd., 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B- Sector-33, Noida, 08, Uttar Pradesh. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan No.Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection Nos. 122 & 123/Del/2019 (In Ita Nos. 2239 To 2240/Del/2019) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Apple Commodities Ltd., Dcit 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B-08, Netaji Subhash Place, Sector-33, Noida, Pitampura, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance of interest and enhancement of gross profit or unexplained foreign remittances. However, AO has not discussed or mentioned any incriminating seized document, which is found and seized, as a result of search and belonging to the appellant company for making such additions in the assessment orders. It is evident from the assessment order that all the additions made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. APPLE COMMODITIES LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2239 & 2240/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Dcit Apple Commodities Ltd., 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B- Sector-33, Noida, 08, Uttar Pradesh. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan No.Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Cross Objection Nos. 122 & 123/Del/2019 (In Ita Nos. 2239 To 2240/Del/2019) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 बनाम Apple Commodities Ltd., Dcit 701-A, 7Th Floor, Vs. Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gd-Itl Tower, Plot No.B-08, Netaji Subhash Place, Sector-33, Noida, Pitampura, New Delhi. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aadca0300K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance of interest and enhancement of gross profit or unexplained foreign remittances. However, AO has not discussed or mentioned any incriminating seized document, which is found and seized, as a result of search and belonging to the appellant company for making such additions in the assessment orders. It is evident from the assessment order that all the additions made

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

b): Even assuming amendment to be retrospective – disallowance still to be restricted to dividend income 18. Strictly without prejudice to (a) above and in the alternative, it is respectfully submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that the amendments in section 14A are held to be retrospective in nature and are therefore held to be applicable to assessment year

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

149 ITR 52 were distinguished observing that they were inapplicable in view of introduction of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) and Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee had claimed that they had taken a premise on rent/lease and during the very first year of business itself the lease was surrendered. Therefore, no enduring business advantage accrued

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

B-1, 17(1), Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044 PAN AAACM0405A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate Ms. Saloni Shital, AR Department by: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.01.2024 Date of 27.03.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income