THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said communication

DURESH SHARMA,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaita No. 1379/Del./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

iii) of section 10(10). I, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(10)(i) in respect of gratuity amount received in total upto Rs.10 lac, which covers a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- received during the year. Overturning the impugned order on this score, I allow exemption u/s 10(10

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings arguing that the same are bad in law. The ld AR first submitted that for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on reappreciation of the same facts which were available in original assessment proceedings. Further based on assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for subsequent

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings arguing that the same are bad in law. The ld AR first submitted that for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on reappreciation of the same facts which were available in original assessment proceedings. Further based on assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for subsequent

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

reassessment was possible just on 2011:DHC:229-DB Assessing Officer to determine the income was already forming part of the assessment records and Assessing Officer in its original order under Section 143 (3) of the Act had deliberated on the exemption to be allowed under Section 10 (2() of the Act and further there was no failure

SH. JAGDEEP SINGH,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

SH. B.S. BOORA,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

SH. RAM KRISHAN GUPTA,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

SH. K.S. PANNU,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

BHUPINDER KUMAR BHATIA,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

SH. KAPOOR SINGH,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are based merely on account of change of opinion. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

reassessment year 1998-99, where it has declined the benefit to the assessee cannot be found fault with. But there is change in the law for the assessment year 2001-02. Section 10(B)(1) and (4) reads as under- "Section 108: Special provisions in respect off newly established hundred per cent export oriented undertakings (1) Subject

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

10 years expires prior to assessment year 2005-06.” The second document relied on were the Instructions of 2006, dated 31st March, 2006: “INSTRUCTIONS NO.1 OF 2006, DT. 31ST MARCH, 2006 SUB: Deduction under Section 10A-Clarification-Reg. 31/3/2006 EXEMPTIONS SECTION 10A 1. Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for 100 per cent deduction of profits

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment. Vide order dated 9th November, 2010 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, Ld AO has held that there is an income amounting to Rs.1,44,24,000/- taxable in hands of the appellant as “perquisites” in terms of section 17(2)(iii) r/w section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The relevant finding

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment. Vide order dated 9th November, 2010 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, Ld AO has held that there is an income amounting to Rs.1,44,24,000/- taxable in hands of the appellant as “perquisites” in terms of section 17(2)(iii) r/w section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The relevant finding

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment. Vide order dated 9th November, 2010 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, Ld AO has held that there is an income amounting to Rs.1,44,24,000/- taxable in hands of the appellant as “perquisites” in terms of section 17(2)(iii) r/w section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The relevant finding

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment. Vide order dated 9th November, 2010 passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, Ld AO has held that there is an income amounting to Rs.1,44,24,000/- taxable in hands of the appellant as “perquisites” in terms of section 17(2)(iii) r/w section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The relevant finding

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

iii) of the proviso to section 34(1), as it then stood, a notice of assessment or reassessment could not be issued against a person deemed to be an agent of a non-resident under section 43, after the expiry of one year from the end of the year of assessment. The section was amended by section