SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

Section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the shareholder. 3. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and Section

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons for the AO to believe

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons for the AO to believe

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The CIT(A) had acted in the interest of revenue and had he not come to this conclusion a substantial income would have remained untaxed. 6.7. The appellant has stated that the order u/s 148/143(3) is illegal and without jurisdiction. However, there were sufficient reasons for the AO to believe

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PAWAN GUPTA

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment, would have to be followed and the same would include the time limit prescribed for a notice under section 16 (2). The Court observed that once the language of section 17 itself required that other provisions, to the extent applicable, would apply considering the return is filed under section 14, it contemplated that both procedural and substantive provisions would

HARMANDER SINGH SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings\nu/s 148 of the Act by issue of notice on 27.07.2016. In response,\nassessee filed the return on 16.09.2016, declaring the same income\nas was declared in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act.\nThereafter, the assessee sought the reasons recoded and filed\ndetailed objections which were disposed off by the AO and finally

RAJAN GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed as aforesaid

reassessment, which may be pending before an income-tax authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 245C is made. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx‖ 11. Section 245C provides that an assessee may, at any stage of a ―case‖ relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner

M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

e) of explanation 2 to sec. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4. Reassessment orders were thereafter passed making addition, under Section 2(22

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. In response to the said notice, the Appellant filed return of income on 20.02.2019. The Appellant also requested for supply of reasons recorded before issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment. The certifiedof the reasons recorded was supplied to the Appellant by the learned Addl

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

2(22)(e) of the Act had escaped assessment. In response to the said notice, the Appellant filed return of income on 20.02.2019. The Appellant also requested for supply of reasons recorded before issue of notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment. The certifiedof the reasons recorded was supplied to the Appellant by the learned Addl

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LATE SHRI C.R. DASS

Appeal is dismissed on the aforesaid ground

2(22)(e) created a legal fiction and such a provision has to be strictly 2011:DHC:1620-DB ITA No. 610/2009 Page 6 of 9 construed. The CIT(A) accepted this plea of the assessee as well. It was now the turn of the Revenue to feel aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A) and accordingly, the Revenue

MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4955/Del/2024, A.Y. 2012-13 Mithlesh Kumar Tripathi Income Tax Officer, D-9, Oberoi Apartments, Ward 27(4), Majnu Ka Tilla, New Delhi-54, Vs. New Delhi PAN: ABUPT3610Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Tanya, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Amisha S. Gupt

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

2 (22) (e) of the Act corresponding to the respective protective assessments in the hands of two entities, i.e. STPPL and PPDPL. 13. Replying to the above arguments, Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the observations in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and the subsequent judgements and emphasised that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

2 (22) (e) of the Act corresponding to the respective protective assessments in the hands of two entities, i.e. STPPL and PPDPL. 13. Replying to the above arguments, Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the observations in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and the subsequent judgements and emphasised that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

2 (22) (e) of the Act corresponding to the respective protective assessments in the hands of two entities, i.e. STPPL and PPDPL. 13. Replying to the above arguments, Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee, referred to the observations in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra) and the subsequent judgements and emphasised that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee by seeking to bring the amounts advanced by PCPL to PRPL as deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee by seeking to bring the amounts advanced by PCPL to PRPL as deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee by seeking to bring the amounts advanced by PCPL to PRPL as deemed dividend considering the same to have been paid as loans in lieu of dividend. ITA Nos. 622, 641, 698 & 642/Del/2024 Rajeev Kumar Arora 8. But from perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment reproduced