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

25 is a copy of Notification issued by the Haryana Government increasing the maximum limit of death-cum-retirement gratuity at Rs.10 lac, under which the assessee has received the arrears of retirement gratuity under this scheme only. The above facts amply demonstrate that CCSU is covered under the expression 'State.' This is further corroborated from Article

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

iii) Getting them inspected from the custom authorities, (iv) Clearing the goods to the clients, (v) Storing the empty containers Thus the activities of ICD/CFS were quite distinct and separate from warehousing activity of the assessee and, therefore, was not eligible for exemption u/s 10 (29) of the Act. She argued that this aspect had not been considered

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

25,870/- returned by the assessee on account of adjustment proposed by the Ld. TPO amounting to Rs. 8,09,277/- and disallowance of exemption under section 10B amounting to Rs. 56,13,895/- assessing the total income at Rs. 2,26,13,49,042/-. 3.5 The assessee filed objection before the Ld. DRP who vide its order dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

reassessment of assessees claiming deduction under section 10A, it has been decided that the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, shall not be denied to STP units only on the ground that the approval/registration to such units has been granted by the Directors of Software Technology Parks. However, it has to be ensured that

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

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

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

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

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

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

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

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

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

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

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

iii) where in the case of a firm, an assessment is made on a partner of the firm in consequence of an assessment made on the firm under section 147. 3(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, subsection (2) of section 153 A and sub-section (1) of section 153B, the order of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

10. On a plain reading of Section 153A of the Act, 1961, it is evident that once search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the AO to issue notice under Section 153 of the Act to the person, requiring him to furnish the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years

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

iii) reduce protracted litigation." According to Mr. Jolly, the initiation of action under Section 270A of the Act is thus liable to be quashed and set aside on the aforesaid grounds. 19. Appearing for the respondents, Mr. Rai submitted that while it is true that the SCNs' referable to Section 270A had referred to both under-reporting/misreporting, the assessment

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

25 to 26. Thereafter, the re-assessment proceedings were completed, and order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein additions of Rs.59,95,80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

25 to 26. Thereafter, the re-assessment proceedings were completed, and order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein additions of Rs.59,95,80,000/- were made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained. Against the said order an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed