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

245D(4) of the Act in which, undisclosed income of the assessee was settled at Rs. 7,56,53,170/-. 11 The Department filed a writ petition against the order of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Hon’ble High Court quashed the order of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission vide its order dated

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

245D(4) of the Act in which, undisclosed income of the assessee was settled at Rs. 7,56,53,170/-. 11 The Department filed a writ petition against the order of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Hon’ble High Court quashed the order of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission vide its order dated

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

245D(4) of the Act in which, undisclosed income of the assessee was settled at Rs. 7,56,53,170/-. 11 The Department filed a writ petition against the order of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Hon’ble High Court quashed the order of the Hon’ble Settlement Commission vide its order dated

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

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

4 of 31 of the assessee, that the assessee had not given any loan to Mohini Sharma, that there was no admission or statement of Mohini Sharma to the effect that she took a loan from the assessee on the security of some property, that there was only a proposal by Mohini Sharma that if the assessee gave an amount

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

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