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

234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment

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

234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A of the Act. 10. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in directing the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 11. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A of the Act. 10. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in directing the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 11. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A of the Act. 10. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in directing the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 11. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment under section 153A shall lie with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 65.11 Consequential amendments have also been made in sections 132, 132B, 140A, 234A

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

reassessment under section 153A shall lie with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 65.11 Consequential amendments have also been made in sections 132, 132B, 140A, 234A

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI

reassessment proceedings and notices were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "68", "234A", "234B", "234C", "151", "150(1)", "150(2)" ], "issues

SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment order passed under section Page 2 of 8 147/143(3) of the Acton 02.09.2011 and consequential interest charged therein under section 234A

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act based on the issue of an invalid notice under section 143(2) of the Act which is the primary requirement for initiation of any assessment proceedings;” Below Ground No. 3.11, the following grounds are added; Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

reassessment proceedings initiated based on such approval were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "151", "68", "250", "234A", "234B", "234C

FR. SAUTER AG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(3)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

Reassessment proceedings are bad-in- law 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under the Act in respect of AY 2012-13, in the absence of any income escaping assessment. 1.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act, which were abated due to the action under section 153A of the act and thus the ratio of making no addition in the case of Kabul Chawala(supra) does not apply in the facts of the instant case. 5.8 As regard to the argument that no presumption can be made

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act, which were abated due to the action under section 153A of the act and thus the ratio of making no addition in the case of Kabul Chawala(supra) does not apply in the facts of the instant case. 5.8 As regard to the argument that no presumption can be made

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts