MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

additional income is disclosed before the Settlement Commission under section 245C 48.1 The provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 234B of the Income-tax Act, before its amendment by the Act, provided that where the total income is increased on reassessment

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

additional income is disclosed before the Settlement Commission under section 245C 48.1 The provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 234B of the Income-tax Act, before its amendment by the Act, provided that where the total income is increased on reassessment

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

addition, besides, too'. The word has been treated as being relative and conjunctive. Evidently, therefore, what Parliament intends by use of the words "and also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe under section147 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i) 'such income

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

MAHUGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

DESIGNARCH INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

addition of Rs.2.2 cr. made by the Assessing officer for which no satisfaction has been recorded at the time of reopening or during the reassessment proceedings. 16. Explanation-3 to Section 147 reads as under: “Section 147…………………….. [Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income

SHEELA FOAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4096/Del/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2005-06 Sheela Foam Ltd., C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacs0189B Vs The Dcit, Central Circle-6, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110016

additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- 1. “That the reassessment order dated 28.03.2013 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income

RAJESH KUMAR,NARNAUL vs. ITO WARD - 2, NARNAUL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1465/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Krishan Nagar, Narnaul, Ward-2, Mohindergarh, Narnaul, Narnaul, Haryana-123001 Haryana-123001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axqpk2406F Assessee By : Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca & Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2022

income (Reassessment) - 14 Rajesh Kumar Assessment year 2004-05 - In course of appellate proceedings, Tribunal noticed that order passed consequent to reassessment, had not confirmed addition

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S BRIJWASI IMPEX PVT. LTD., DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assistant Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 (Pan: Aabcb7530L) Cross-Objection No.9/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, Central Circle-12, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 (Pan: Aabcb7530L) Cross-Objection No.10/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, Central Circle-12, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Brijwasi Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170-Kucha Mahajani, Central Circle 12, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170-Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the ‘total income’ of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six A.Ys “ in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax.” iv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

reassessing of the income of an Assessee only in respect of the issue, which formed a part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The said explanation cannot be interpreted to mean that the AO could assess other incomes of the Assessee even in cases where no addition

UJJWAL MICROFINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

addition, besides, too'. The word has been treated as being relative and conjunctive. Evidently, therefore, what Parliament intends by use of the words "and also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe under section147 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i) 'such income

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

addition, besides, too'. The word has been treated as being relative and conjunctive. Evidently, therefore, what Parliament intends by use of the words "and also" is that the Assessing Officer, upon the formation of a reason to believe under section147 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i) 'such income

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38 taxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38 taxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

additional income. The Madras High Court in the case of S.M.J. Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38 taxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the assessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted such return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. From the above cases