DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of ITA Nos. 1883 & 2144/Del/2023

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

244A of the Act from first day of AY i.e. 1 April 2021 till the date of receipt of actual refund in the bank account of the Appellant. 3. We shall take up AY 2012-13 as the lead case. Our findings on the main issues recorded in AY 2012-13 shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the common issues

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

244A of the Act from first day of AY i.e. 1 April 2021 till the date of receipt of actual refund in the bank account of the Appellant. 3. We shall take up AY 2012-13 as the lead case. Our findings on the main issues recorded in AY 2012-13 shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the common issues

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

244A of the Act from first day of AY i.e. 1 April 2021 till the date of receipt of actual refund in the bank account of the Appellant. 3. We shall take up AY 2012-13 as the lead case. Our findings on the main issues recorded in AY 2012-13 shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the common issues

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

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.

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

S C JHONSON PRODUCTS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) are applicable? If the reply\nis in affirmative, please state\n(i)\n(ii)\nNO\nWhether any voluntary return\nhas already been filed; and\nif so the date of filing, the\nsaid return\n\n8\nWhether the assessment is proposed to\nbe made for the first time. If the reply\nis in affirmative, please state

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

244A of the Act. 10. That the Ld. AO has erred on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law in mechanically initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

b) In case of United Phosphorus Ltd. (supra), the Court on facts held that in respect of items for which assessment is sought to be reopened 16 ITAs. 6219 & 6220/Del/2015 AND C.O. Nos. 404 & 405/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. M/s. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., ND has merged with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and as such there is no independent existence

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

b) In case of United Phosphorus Ltd. (supra), the Court on facts held that in respect of items for which assessment is sought to be reopened 16 ITAs. 6219 & 6220/Del/2015 AND C.O. Nos. 404 & 405/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. M/s. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., ND has merged with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and as such there is no independent existence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE, DELHI vs. BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LIMITED, KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roydcit, Circle 4(2) Vs. Bharat Broadband Room No. 384, C.R. Network Limited, Building I.P. Estate, New 3Rd Floor, East Kidwai Delhi, Delhi – 110002 Nagar, Nbcc, Office Block 1, Kidwai Nagar East, South West, Delhi Delhi - 110023

b) reported in Audit Report and ITR. 3. The assessee duly submitted its Income Tax Return acknowledgment along with computation of income and audited financial statement and other documents as called for by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Such assessment proceeding was finalized upon accepting the returned income filed by the assessee on 24.11.2017 appearing at page

SUKH DARSHAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD.43(2) , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

244A, if allowed earlier, as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue a copy of this order to the assessee.” 4. With the above observation, the Assessing Officer rejected the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54F and made adjustments to the income declared by the assessee in his return of income. He proceeded to make the addition

TABLEAU INTERNATION UNLIMITED COPMANY THE OVAL SHELBOURNE ROAD OVEL BALLSBRIDGE DUBLIN,IRELAND D04E7K5,IRELAND vs. DCIT,CIRCLE3(1)(1) INTERNATIOANAL TAXATION , DELHI

Appeal stands allowed in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

244A of the Act granted to the Appellant pursuant to the processing of the ROI filed and erred in levying consequential interest u/s 234D of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u / s 270A of the Act on account