CENTRAL 1 vs. MR. SRI CHAND GUPTA

11 of 17 1922), or this Act, as if the order had been the order of regular assessment; (iii) specifying the amount that will be required to satisfy any existing liability under this Act and any one or more of the Acts specified in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 230A in respect of which such person

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

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

11(2) in the assessment order dated\n01 December 2018. The entire action for reassessment\nis founded solely on Form 10 having been submitted\nafter 17 October 2016 and which was the due date in\nterms of Section 139(1).\n\n28. In our considered opinion, an action for\nreassessment would have to be based on the\nformation

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. CANARA BANK RELIEF AND WELFARE SOCIETY

5,85,00,000/- was offered for tax and Form No. 10 was filed during the reassessment proceedings. Furthermore, the CIT(A) also held that the AO had not returned a finding that the conditions provided in Section 11

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

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (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

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

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue, respec- tively. (12) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued after nine months from

XANDER ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue, respec- tively. (12) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued after nine months from

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 reopening of the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that notice under section 148 has been issued beyond three years without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other documents in the possession

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 reopening of the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that notice under section 148 has been issued beyond three years without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other documents in the possession

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 reopening of the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that notice under section 148 has been issued beyond three years without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other documents in the possession

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 reopening of the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that notice under section 148 has been issued beyond three years without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other documents in the possession

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5) of the Act read with section 194LD or the Act as well as non grants of TDS deducted on income being included by him in the Total Income. a. The Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact the Appellant was a foreign company and registered in India as Category III FPI regulated by SEBI and has invested