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

11 Act, it has been found that the amount exceeds the disclosure made by the applicant under Section 245C(1) of the IT Act. If the assessee would have made the true and correct disclosure and thereafter on determination and passing the order under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act, the amount determined does not exceed the amount disclosed

CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more\nparticularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the\nnon-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings\nare not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the\nlearned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees\nthat the outer time limit under Section

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of method adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer, in computing 'accumulation' under section

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of method adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer, in computing 'accumulation' under section

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

11 Motherson Sumi Systems Limited vs. DCIT income would be entitled to 100% exemption or deduction under section 10A and 10B of the Act. 11.2 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has also affirmed the view expressed by the first Division Bench of this Court in the case of Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that

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

11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section 144C more\nparticularly when the provisions of Section 153 are excluded by the\nnon-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence the proceedings\nare not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been contended by the\nlearned senior counsels appearing for the respondent(s)/assessees\nthat the outer time limit under Section

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

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)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

reassessment cannot be read into Section\n144C more particularly when the provisions of Section 153 are\nexcluded by the non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) and hence\nthe proceedings are not barred by limitation. Per contra, it has been\ncontended by the learned senior counsels appearing for the\nrespondent(s)/assessees that the outer time limit under Section

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section 148 issued

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section 148 issued

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

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section 148 issued

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

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section 148 issued