ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

IA) are aborted from unknown reasons which supports assessee’s stand and position taken on impugned transactions which are stated to be genuine and free from any taint. Merits of the cases: assessee’s version on facts glossed over like rip van winkleism 7. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

IA) are aborted from unknown reasons which supports assessee’s stand and position taken on impugned transactions which are stated to be genuine and free from any taint. Merits of the cases: assessee’s version on facts glossed over like rip van winkleism 7. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

IA) are aborted from unknown reasons which supports assessee’s stand and position taken on impugned transactions which are stated to be genuine and free from any taint. Merits of the cases: assessee’s version on facts glossed over like rip van winkleism 7. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

IA) are aborted from unknown reasons which supports assessee’s stand and position taken on impugned transactions which are stated to be genuine and free from any taint. Merits of the cases: assessee’s version on facts glossed over like rip van winkleism 7. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

IA) are aborted from unknown reasons which supports assessee’s stand and position taken on impugned transactions which are stated to be genuine and free from any taint. Merits of the cases: assessee’s version on facts glossed over like rip van winkleism 7. That order passed by Ld. AO dated 29/12/2017 and further order passed

AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

ia) of the Act clearly reveals that the survey operation was commenced on 17.08.2011 and concluded on 18.08.2011 by impounding certain documents, hard discs, etc. and, during the said survey operation, statement of Shri Kailash Jai Aeren, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the assessee company was recorded, therefore, it is amply clear that there was only a survey operation

AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

ia) of the Act clearly reveals that the survey operation was commenced on 17.08.2011 and concluded on 18.08.2011 by impounding certain documents, hard discs, etc. and, during the said survey operation, statement of Shri Kailash Jai Aeren, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the assessee company was recorded, therefore, it is amply clear that there was only a survey operation

AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

ia) of the Act clearly reveals that the survey operation was commenced on 17.08.2011 and concluded on 18.08.2011 by impounding certain documents, hard discs, etc. and, during the said survey operation, statement of Shri Kailash Jai Aeren, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the assessee company was recorded, therefore, it is amply clear that there was only a survey operation

M/S. A K CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6859/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 A. K. Capital Markets Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca9960D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order

3. Ground Nos. 1 to 6, 8(i) & 8(ii) were not pressed, so these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. The Ground No. 9 is general in nature. 4. Now the only issue agitated by the assessee vide Ground Nos. 7(i) & (ii) relates to the confirmation of the action of the AO is not allowing

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ia) of the act of INR 1 40099718/– whereas in the revised return of income the same was revised to INR 1 08382593/– since it was later noticed that, sum of INR 3 1717125/– had not been claimed as an expenditure in the profit and loss account. 2 Expenditure on upfront fee paid to M/s 22472631/– WDC venture for subscription

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

House, since inception. 23.11.2010 Commencement of He held 550 shares in YI, which directorship of Mr. were later on, were transferred Sam Pitroda to Mr. Oscar Fernandes. He was Director of AJL since 21.12.2010 23.11.2010 Commencement of He held 550 shares in YI directorship of Mr. which were later on transferred Suman Dubey to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi He was Director

TUPPERWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

House, Special Range-9, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 PAN AAACT3770D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Shri Shrey Chakarborty, Advocate Department by: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 05.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 01.08.2022 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA The appeal filed by the assessee is directed

LILLIPUT KIDWEARS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4103/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lilliput Kidwears Ltd., Vs Dcit, D-95, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-4(1), Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3031E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Manvendra Goyal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

house property to determine ALV as in the case of Diven Dembla (supra) or to determine whether the land was an exempt capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii) and whether the land in question was situated beyond 8 kms from municipal limits, as in the case of Lai Singh (supra). 6 Lilliput Kidwears Ltd. 3.3.8. The final contention

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CENTAUR IMPEX P.LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

133A and 133B and seizure under Section 132. The appellants are also correct in their submission that in the absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was not open to the High Court to have disabled the Assessing Officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the High Court has done is to read limitations into

CENTAUR HELICOPTER SERVICES P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

133A and 133B and seizure under Section 132. The appellants are also correct in their submission that in the absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was not open to the High Court to have disabled the Assessing Officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the High Court has done is to read limitations into

ASHOK CHAWLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

133A and 133B and seizure under Section 132. The appellants are also correct in their submission that in the absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was not open to the High Court to have disabled the Assessing Officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the High Court has done is to read limitations into

ANUJ CHAWLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

133A and 133B and seizure under Section 132. The appellants are also correct in their submission that in the absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was not open to the High Court to have disabled the Assessing Officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the High Court has done is to read limitations into

CENTAUR IMPEX P.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

133A and 133B and seizure under Section 132. The appellants are also correct in their submission that in the absence of any challenge to any of these provisions, it was not open to the High Court to have disabled the Assessing Officer from discharging his statutory functions. What the High Court has done is to read limitations into