COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

120.‖ 34. On analyzing the new Section 124, it is viewed that as per sub- section (1), Assessing Officer has jurisdiction in respect of persons carrying on business or profession where such business or profession was being carried out or situated within the area or where the business or profession was carried on in different areas, if the principal place

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HISAR vs. JCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] (15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition

ITO, WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALMAK FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri Prashant Maharishi

Reassessment was also held to be invalid for the reason that the jurisdiction over assessee's case was not transferred by any order passed under section 127 by any competent authority to the ITO who passed the impugned assessment order. (i) Ranjeet Singh v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 120

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassess the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is also a settled law that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassess the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is also a settled law that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassess the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is also a settled law that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Reassessment order can he by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to ,Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued, under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) to Section 120

VISHAN GUNNA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Vishan Gunna, Vs Acit, Plot No.550, House No.- Circle-Int.Tex 1(3)(1), 8-3-293/83/J-Iii, Road New Delhi. No.92, Jubilee Hills, Telangana-500033. Pan-Bmypg5434R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.Mohan Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120

DESIGNARCH INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

120 months from the date of filing of return and 43 months from the date of issue of notice u/s 148 at their disposal to come out with the details of the deposit. 15. Our above view in respect of Rs.5,00,000/- leads to examination of applicability of Explanation-3 to Section 147 of the IT Act inserted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 153 C of the Act but in relation to Section 153A of the Act as well.Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the ITAT in accepting the plea of the Assessee that there is no 64 I.T.As. No.4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070/DEL/2017 incriminating document which was seized

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 153 C of the Act but in relation to Section 153A of the Act as well.Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the ITAT in accepting the plea of the Assessee that there is no 64 I.T.As. No.4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070/DEL/2017 incriminating document which was seized

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 153 C of the Act but in relation to Section 153A of the Act as well.Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the ITAT in accepting the plea of the Assessee that there is no 64 I.T.As. No.4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070/DEL/2017 incriminating document which was seized

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 153 C of the Act but in relation to Section 153A of the Act as well.Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the ITAT in accepting the plea of the Assessee that there is no 64 I.T.As. No.4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070/DEL/2017 incriminating document which was seized

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 153 C of the Act but in relation to Section 153A of the Act as well.Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the ITAT in accepting the plea of the Assessee that there is no 64 I.T.As. No.4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070/DEL/2017 incriminating document which was seized

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 153 C of the Act but in relation to Section 153A of the Act as well.Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the ITAT in accepting the plea of the Assessee that there is no 64 I.T.As. No.4039, 4040, 4041, 4042, 4043, 4064, 4065, 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070/DEL/2017 incriminating document which was seized