OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2013-14. The said disclosure was increased to Rs. 7,48,04,200/- during the course of settlement proceedings. On 26.11.2014, the Hon’ble ITSC passed

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2013-14. The said disclosure was increased to Rs. 7,48,04,200/- during the course of settlement proceedings. On 26.11.2014, the Hon’ble ITSC passed

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2013-14. The said disclosure was increased to Rs. 7,48,04,200/- during the course of settlement proceedings. On 26.11.2014, the Hon’ble ITSC passed

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing on the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- section (1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded. If, after

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing on the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- section (1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded. If, after

MUKESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and purchase of rights of Vimal brand same arguments were raised. Though, assessee also explained these issues. 9. Assessee also submitted that that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 has already been admitted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245C (1)/245D (1) vide order dated 18/12/2019 and therefore the proceedings before

GUNJAN GARG,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and purchase of rights of Vimal brand same arguments were raised. Though, assessee also explained these issues. 9. Assessee also submitted that that the case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 has already been admitted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245C (1)/245D (1) vide order dated 18/12/2019 and therefore the proceedings before

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In the subsequent decisions also, Hon'ble court has substantiated their aforesaid views. In the case Pr. CIT vs Ram Avtar Verma 395 ITR 252, Hon'ble Court has supported the aforesaid view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In the subsequent decisions also, Hon'ble court has substantiated their aforesaid views. In the case Pr. CIT vs Ram Avtar Verma 395 ITR 252, Hon'ble Court has supported the aforesaid view that

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In the subsequent decisions also, Hon'ble court has substantiated their aforesaid views. In the case Pr. CIT vs Ram Avtar Verma 395 ITR 252, Hon'ble Court has supported the aforesaid view that

SH. VIKAS KAPOOR,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

245C(1) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2010-11 in the case of M/s Bright Professionals Pvt. Ltd., therefore, opined while passing the appellate order that since the results declared in the Rule-9 report filed by the Deptt. and adjudicated u/s 2450(4) of the Act, by the ITSC, therefore, no interference

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

245C before the settlement commission on 15/02/2012, which was found by order dated 17/04/2013 as not valid. Therefore, the learned assessing officer preceded with the assessment proceedings. The assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court for stopping the assessment proceedings, which was later on withdrawn, therefore assessment proceedings continued. 08. In view of this factual

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

245C before the settlement commission on 15/02/2012, which was found by order dated 17/04/2013 as not valid. Therefore, the learned assessing officer preceded with the assessment proceedings. The assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court for stopping the assessment proceedings, which was later on withdrawn, therefore assessment proceedings continued. 08. In view of this factual