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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D of the I.T. Act. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs., Dr. Ashok Kumar (supra) considered the identical issue

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

house bearing Municipal No.3601, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi-34. It was further 2012:DHC:4851-DB ITA Nos. 1626, 1632, 1998, 2006, 2019 & 2020/2010 Page 5 of 31 undertaken to forgo all her rights on the property mentioned above if she failed to pay back the loan amount within the stipulated period of 18 months. A copy

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

house property could not be taxed in India. 3.19. However, the notification number 91/2008 dated 28.08.2008 was held to retrospective and applicable to AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 by the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT, (2014) 42 taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai ITAT) (Relevant para: Para 54, 60 & 61, Page