GEETANJALI BHAYANA,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2019-20 and AY\n2020-21 are allowed

197 (Madras). Ld. AR further submits\nthat search in the case of Kuldeep Bishnoi from where the documents\npertaining the assessee were seized, was carried out on 23.07.2019\nhowever, when the satisfaction is recorded in the case of assessee,\nthe law stood amended thus the provisions as existed as on the date\nwhen the satisfaction in the case of assessee

GEETANJALI BHAYANA,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI, NEW DELHI

197 (Madras). Ld. AR further submits\nthat search in the case of Kuldeep Bishnoi from where the documents\npertaining the assessee were seized, was carried out on 23.07.2019\nhowever, when the satisfaction is recorded in the case of assessee,\nthe law stood amended thus the provisions as existed as on the date\nwhen the satisfaction in the case of assessee

GEETANJALI BHAYANA,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2019-20 and AY\n2020-21 are allowed

197 (Madras). Ld. AR further submits\nthat search in the case of Kuldeep Bishnoi from where the documents\npertaining the assessee were seized, was carried out on 23.07.2019\nhowever, when the satisfaction is recorded in the case of assessee,\nthe law stood amended thus the provisions as existed as on the date\nwhen the satisfaction in the case of assessee

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section is not applicable here. The AO has also incorrectly

ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment or re-computation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the 'second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished

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.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras

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.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras

MARCONI INFRATECH (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, FARIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3126 To 3132/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Marconi Infratech Vs. Acit (P.) Ltd., F-022, Lg, Central Circle – 11 Sushant Arcade, Sushant Faridabad Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aagcm 1219 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since all the matters relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that a search and seizure operation under Section

MARCONI INFRATECH (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, FARIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3126 To 3132/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Marconi Infratech Vs. Acit (P.) Ltd., F-022, Lg, Central Circle – 11 Sushant Arcade, Sushant Faridabad Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aagcm 1219 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since all the matters relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that a search and seizure operation under Section

MARCONI INFRATECH (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, FARIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3126 To 3132/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Marconi Infratech Vs. Acit (P.) Ltd., F-022, Lg, Central Circle – 11 Sushant Arcade, Sushant Faridabad Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aagcm 1219 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since all the matters relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that a search and seizure operation under Section

MARCONI INFRATECH (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, FARIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3126 To 3132/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Marconi Infratech Vs. Acit (P.) Ltd., F-022, Lg, Central Circle – 11 Sushant Arcade, Sushant Faridabad Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aagcm 1219 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since all the matters relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that a search and seizure operation under Section

MARCONI INFRATECH (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, FARIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s all appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. Nos. 3126 To 3132/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Marconi Infratech Vs. Acit (P.) Ltd., F-022, Lg, Central Circle – 11 Sushant Arcade, Sushant Faridabad Lok-1, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aagcm 1219 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

1)(b) read with Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since all the matters relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts leading to the case is this that a search and seizure operation under Section