COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

153C read with Section 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue was aggrieved inasmuch as the CIT(A) had set aside the addition to the total income of the Assessee made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the purchases as declared by the Assessee as well as the AO’s decision to disallow

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowing expenses of Rs. 70,156/- under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed. 5. The assessee craves leave for addition, notification, deletion, any of grounds of appeal either before the hearing of appeal or at the time of appeal. 6. The assesses have

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowing expenses of Rs. 70,156/- under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed. 5. The assessee craves leave for addition, notification, deletion, any of grounds of appeal either before the hearing of appeal or at the time of appeal. 6. The assesses have

M/S. GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowing expenses of Rs. 70,156/- under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed. 5. The assessee craves leave for addition, notification, deletion, any of grounds of appeal either before the hearing of appeal or at the time of appeal. 6. The assesses have

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowing expenses of Rs. 70,156/- under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence filed. 5. The assessee craves leave for addition, notification, deletion, any of grounds of appeal either before the hearing of appeal or at the time of appeal. 6. The assesses have

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

153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent

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

153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent

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

153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent

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

153C of the Act in the following judicial pronouncements: i) 439 ITR 154 (Bom) Jainam Investments v. ACIT (115-224 of JPB) ii) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (pages 125-137 of JPB) iii) 459 IR 100 (Bom) Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (pages 350-375 of JPB) iv) ITA No. 1973/D/2022 dated 30.11.2023 Decent

COMMITMENT MORTALITY VISION EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

153C of the Act and sought adjournment on one or other pretext. 3.1 The Assessing Officer brought to the knowledge of the assessee that the statement of Sri Aseem Gupta, Controller of the assessee society, wherein he admitted that a bank account was roup . Sh. Aseem Gupta further admitted that the assessee trust (society) was used as a conduit

COMMITMENT MORTALITY VISION EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

153C of the Act and sought adjournment on one or other pretext. 3.1 The Assessing Officer brought to the knowledge of the assessee that the statement of Sri Aseem Gupta, Controller of the assessee society, wherein he admitted that a bank account was roup . Sh. Aseem Gupta further admitted that the assessee trust (society) was used as a conduit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NOBLE MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 153C of the Act. 8. The assessment orders noted that on 23rd December, 2011 a show cause notice („SCN‟) was issued to Ganpati stating that there was no real business activity and there was no supporting infrastructure such as fixed assets. In those circumstances, Ganpati was asked to explain why the company should not be treated as a fictitious

M/S. DALMIA CONSOLIDATED PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowed u/s. 68 of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee and accordingly, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 3,00,00,000/- vide order dated 24.3.2015 passed u/s. 153C read with Section