JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A, that, the 54F is only available for the construction of one new (ii) residential house only. That, he has relied on the report of inspector, that, the assessee has not constructed any residential house and it is just renovation of old existing house, which has never been confronted to the assessee. e) That, being aggrieved from the assessment order

SHARAD KUMAR VASHISHTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

144A of the Income Tax Act to make the addition of Rs.3 lacs. Therefore, assessing officer, made addition of Rs.3 lacs under this head. 8. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. 9. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon orders of the authorities below. 10. After considering the rival submissions

SATISH KUMAR TYAGI,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property only, whereas per 26AS statement the assessee was in receipt of interest amounting to Rs. 48,54,476.79 from Treasury, PNB and Syndicate Bank on which there was TDS of Rs. 4,86,990/-. Neither this income was shown in the return of income, nor claimed credit of TDS. AO issued notices

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

Housing Ltd. v Income-tax Officer Ward 2(3), Chennai [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras) wherein it was held that in case an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure, the entire proceedings would not be vitiated. 26. We therefore make the position clear that non-compliance of the procedure indicated in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. ‟s case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

Housing Ltd. v Income-tax Officer Ward 2(3), Chennai [2018] 93 taxmann.com 371 (Madras) wherein it was held that in case an order is passed without following a prescribed procedure, the entire proceedings would not be vitiated. 26. We therefore make the position clear that non-compliance of the procedure indicated in the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. ‟s case

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

house property Rs.81,609/- Total Rs.2,02,919/- 3. Subsequently, on 24.07.2013 the CIT-16, Delhi, called for a report from the AO regarding errors in assessment of the assessee and his wife Smt. Shumana Sen. An order u/s 127 of the Act was passed by the ld.CIT-16 on 27.08.2013 transferring the jurisdiction over the assessee’s case from

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

Housing Colony situated at Sector-65, Urban Estate, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Copy of the BBA is placed at Pages 220-273 of the PB. The assessee in terms of the aforesaid agreement had invested a sum of Rs.110.18 crores by making several remittances to MIPL. Copy of the receipts are filed at Pages

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

Housing Colony situated at Sector-65, Urban Estate, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Copy of the BBA is placed at Pages 220-273 of the PB. The assessee in terms of the aforesaid agreement had invested a sum of Rs.110.18 crores by making several remittances to MIPL. Copy of the receipts are filed at Pages

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

Housing Colony situated at Sector-65, Urban Estate, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Copy of the BBA is placed at Pages 220-273 of the PB. The assessee in terms of the aforesaid agreement had invested a sum of Rs.110.18 crores by making several remittances to MIPL. Copy of the receipts are filed at Pages

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

Housing Colony situated at Sector-65, Urban Estate, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Copy of the BBA is placed at Pages 220-273 of the PB. The assessee in terms of the aforesaid agreement had invested a sum of Rs.110.18 crores by making several remittances to MIPL. Copy of the receipts are filed at Pages

CIT vs. MEERA GOYAL

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house property at 37, Friends Colony, New Delhi. On 28.01.2007 the respondent entered into an agreement to sell the said property to Shinestar Buildcon (P) Ltd. The sale consideration of the property was agreed upon at `150 crores. Earnest ITA 1263/2011 Page 2 of 6 money under the agreement was determined to be `36 crores. In respect of the said

MR. MOHIT GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT, FARIDABAD

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

house property and deduction under chapter VI- A at Rs.1,00,000/- total income has been declared at Rs. I 3,53,177/-. 3.2 Thereafter, the case was selected under scrutiny through CASS. The reason for selection under scrutiny was that the interest income on which TDS was deducted and reflected on the computer system of the department

UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144A of the Act in compliance of the order/directions dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Ld. DRP, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making additions

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act. 43. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted at page 37 of the paper book being an agreement between Crabtree India Ltd and assessee dated 13.03.2002. The agreement says that the assessee is having marketing infrastructure in the form of Central and Accounts Office

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act. 43. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted at page 37 of the paper book being an agreement between Crabtree India Ltd and assessee dated 13.03.2002. The agreement says that the assessee is having marketing infrastructure in the form of Central and Accounts Office

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act. 43. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted at page 37 of the paper book being an agreement between Crabtree India Ltd and assessee dated 13.03.2002. The agreement says that the assessee is having marketing infrastructure in the form of Central and Accounts Office

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

Housing & Land Developers Ltd. in ITA No. 5117, 5118/Del/2013. 9. Copy of order of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in 53K-53U the case of M/s Devi Dayal Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT in ITA No. 5435, 5436/Del/2013. 10. Copy of order of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in 54-65 the case of Natural Products Bio Tech Ltd. v DCIT

RAJESH KUMAR,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner