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 under section 147 of the Act on the basis of proceedings concluded for a subsequent assessment year and not on the basis of any tangible material available for the concerned assessment year. 1.3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed under

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

Section 10 (29) of the Act of the same. (c) The method followed by the assessee was clearly wrong having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orrisa Ware Housing (supra) wherein it was held that receipt not derived from Warehousing were taxable thereby implying that expenses were to be apportion between the taxable and non-taxable receipts

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. 16. When we apply the ratio of aforesaid cases to the facts of this case, the irresistible conclusion would be provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable in such

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

26,13,49,042/-. 3.5 The assessee filed objection before the Ld. DRP who vide its order dated 24.12.2014 upheld the order of the Ld. AO/TPO. 3.6 Pursuant to the directions/ order of the Ld. DRP, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order on 16.01.2015 making the aforesaid disallowance/ addition to the income returned by the assessee. 3.7 Aggrieved

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

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 22. As is evident from a reading of Section 270A(1), a person would be liable to be considered to have under reported its income if the contingencies spoken of in clauses

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

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

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

reassessment matters nor vests any such power in the Id. CIT(A), Even other wise the Instruction cannot substitute the independent statutory preconditions under Sections 147/148 read with Section 149, which provides the timelines for issuance of notice of Jurisdiction is assumed for reopening a particular assessment year. Even the power vested with Id. CIT(A) are reopening. Provision

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

reassessment matters nor vests any such power in the Id. CIT(A), Even other wise the Instruction cannot substitute the independent statutory preconditions under Sections 147/148 read with Section 149, which provides the timelines for issuance of notice of Jurisdiction is assumed for reopening a particular assessment year. Even the power vested with Id. CIT(A) are reopening. Provision

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)

reassessment proceedings and had allowed the limitation period to lapse. Tn the present case, we have not given any direction to the authorities contrary to the period prescribed under Section 153B. We have interpreted Section 153B and accordingly computed the period of limitation stipulated therein. We have applied the proviso to Section 153B, which is applicable. 20. In view

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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 the appeal

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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 the appeal

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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 the appeal

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

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 the appeal

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

26 March 2019. The\nprincipal question which stands posited for our\nconsideration is whether a failure on the part of the\npetitioner to electronically upload Form 10CCB along with\nits Return of Income and as per the time frames\ncontemplated under Section 139 would constitute a valid\nground for the reassessment action being initiated or for\nthe respondents asserting that

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

10 the maxim' Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium' which means for every wrong, law provides a remedy. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon Steels (P) Limited V. Commissioner of Customs: (2007) 14 SCC 464, he submitted that the Apex Court in the context of territorial jurisdiction of Court, observed, "But no person