ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and deduction under Section 54 claimed thereon does not and cannot arise at all. On revision order passed under Section 263 of the Act is, therefore, not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs. Clix Finance India P. Ltd., reported

JAGDISH CHANDRA MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt.Year: 2008-09

house properties 1,08,75,047 Long term capital gain 17,02,103 Income from other sources 3,83,397 Deduction claimed under Chapter VIA 51,760 He had paid Rs.8,00,000/- as advance tax on 15.03.2008 by CSN 44 BSR 220094. In the application, the appellant admitted that ‘by mistake the assessee has not claimed the same

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded. If, after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall be excluded. If, after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days

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

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

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

House but at different floors which were not covered in the search:- i. Raghuram Synthetics Pvt. Ltd - AAECR5536P ii. Jakhotia Enterprises- Partnership Concern- AAGFJ3074R iii. Jakhotia Polyfibre Pvt Ltd -AABCJ7246D iv. Jakhotia Polysacks Pvt Ltd -AABCJ9725F v. Jakhotia Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd-AACCJ6417B vi. Revathi Synthetics Pvt Ltd-AAACR9639P These group companies were also engaged in the manufacturing

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

House but at different floors which were not covered in the search:- i. Raghuram Synthetics Pvt. Ltd - AAECR5536P ii. Jakhotia Enterprises- Partnership Concern- AAGFJ3074R iii. Jakhotia Polyfibre Pvt Ltd -AABCJ7246D iv. Jakhotia Polysacks Pvt Ltd -AABCJ9725F v. Jakhotia Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd-AACCJ6417B vi. Revathi Synthetics Pvt Ltd-AAACR9639P These group companies were also engaged in the manufacturing

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

House but at different floors which were not covered in the search:- i. Raghuram Synthetics Pvt. Ltd - AAECR5536P ii. Jakhotia Enterprises- Partnership Concern- AAGFJ3074R iii. Jakhotia Polyfibre Pvt Ltd -AABCJ7246D iv. Jakhotia Polysacks Pvt Ltd -AABCJ9725F v. Jakhotia Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd-AACCJ6417B vi. Revathi Synthetics Pvt Ltd-AAACR9639P These group companies were also engaged in the manufacturing

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

House but at different floors which were not covered in the search:- i. Raghuram Synthetics Pvt. Ltd - AAECR5536P ii. Jakhotia Enterprises- Partnership Concern- AAGFJ3074R iii. Jakhotia Polyfibre Pvt Ltd -AABCJ7246D iv. Jakhotia Polysacks Pvt Ltd -AABCJ9725F v. Jakhotia Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd-AACCJ6417B vi. Revathi Synthetics Pvt Ltd-AAACR9639P These group companies were also engaged in the manufacturing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S SNW SMITH CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property discovered disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 4.3.6 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526(Delhi) held that invocation of section 153A by revenue for assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis where there was no incriminating material qua each

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. ADAM SMITH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property discovered disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 4.3.6 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526(Delhi) held that invocation of section 153A by revenue for assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis where there was no incriminating material qua each

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S SNW SMITH CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property discovered disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 4.3.6 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526(Delhi) held that invocation of section 153A by revenue for assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis where there was no incriminating material qua each

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. SNW SMITH CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

property discovered disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. 4.3.6 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526(Delhi) held that invocation of section 153A by revenue for assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis where there was no incriminating material qua each

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

245D(4) dated 3rd March, 2016 on the ground that the disclosure was not true and full and has not explained the manner in which it was derived. Since the application filed by the assessee was rejected by the Settlement Commission, the same was included in the return of income for the year under consideration in response to notice

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

245D(4) dated 3rd March, 2016 on the ground that the disclosure was not true and full and has not explained the manner in which it was derived. Since the application filed by the assessee was rejected by the Settlement Commission, the same was included in the return of income for the year under consideration in response to notice

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

245D(4) dated 3rd March, 2016 on the ground that the disclosure was not true and full and has not explained the manner in which it was derived. Since the application filed by the assessee was rejected by the Settlement Commission, the same was included in the return of income for the year under consideration in response to notice

SHRIKANTA BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Bajaj, Vs Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Acxpb6203D Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shrikanta Bajaj, Vs. Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Ahlpr0130J (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.552/Del/2021 & 553/Del/2021 For Ay 2016-17 Arise Out Of The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-

House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. PAN: AHLPR0130J (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: These appeals in ITA No.552/Del/2021 and 553/Del/2021