JAIKARAN NAGAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings u/s 148/148A of the Act and further erred on law and facts in making the addition of Rs. 79,81,000/- applying the provisions of Sec-115BBE of the Act, in terms of the assessment order, whereas the entire assessment proceedings has been made in gross violation of the assessment procedure prescribed under the Act, as in force

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

b) of sub-section (2) of Section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under Section 270A and initiation of proceedings under Section 276-C or Section 276-CC, where the proceedings for penalty under Section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said Section 270A. (4) The Assessing Officer shall

AP GOYAL CHARITABLE TRUST,EAST DELHI, DELHI INDIA vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 249(4) of the Act. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that primarily case of the assessee is fully covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anors vs. Rajiv Bansal in Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 wherein it is held if the notice is issued u/s 148 under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

249(4)(b). This is mandatory. This requirement has not been complied with. 24. However, we would not like to decide and dispose of the appeals on the present reasoning, in view of the questions of law that have been admitted above, which are on a different aspect. We have referred to the said Section as to clarify the legal

PARMANAND SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 249(4)(b) and decided that the appeal is not competent to be admitted. The decision of the CIT (A) of non-admission is contrary to facts and law and therefore, his order of not admitting the appeal is liable to be set aside. 2. The CIT (A) on account of not admitting the appeal, did not decided

MADHULIKA MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(5), NOIDA

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

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. Ito Madhulika Mishra B-1501, Tower-4, Enchante, Ward – 5(1)(5) Lodha New Cuffe Parade, Noida Wadala East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan No. Asppm 9325 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalen, C.A. & Shri Kirit Vasan. R. C.A. Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 until after the order under section 148 was passed on 29.3.2022. 2. Letters from National Faceless Appeal Centre seeking clarification u/s 249(4)(b

AISHANI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment which is done for the benefit of Revenue. Hence, in our view, clause (b) of Section 249(4) of the Act will

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

249 (Del) (Para 8) and CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) Therefore, it is evident from perusal of assessment order and above facts, no notice under section 143(2} of IT Act was ever issued after examination of return of income and audited financial statements as discussed above. 3. Recording of reason after taking approval under section

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

249 (Del) (Para 8) and CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) Therefore, it is evident from perusal of assessment order and above facts, no notice under section 143(2} of IT Act was ever issued after examination of return of income and audited financial statements as discussed above. 3. Recording of reason after taking approval under section

VANDANA SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO 5(2)(5) NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarvandana Singh, Ito, 5(2)(5), 302, Abhinav Apartments, Noida, U.P. Vasundhra Enclave V. Delhi-110096 Pan-Dcrps8979A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 249(4)(b) of the Act, as in view of ld. CIT(A) the assessee having not filed the return of income has also not deposited amount of advance tax payable by 4 Vandana Singh v. ITO him, despite the submissions made by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is teacher of younger children home tutor

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

249 Taxman 470 (Guj.)]. It is\nvehemently argued that once a revised return is filed, the\noriginal return must be taken to have been withdrawn and\nsubstituted by a fresh return for the purpose of\nassessment.\n\n11.\nThus, in a case where the return has been revised\nwithin time along with the correct claim under Section\n801B

M3M INDIA HOLDINGS,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Ground No.3 of the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment shall be passed by the assessing officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A or assessment year referred to 38 ITA.No.2691/Del./2018 M3M India Holdings, Gurgaon. in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B except with the prior approval

VIKASH CHAUDHARY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(5), NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Anil Kumar Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceeding illegal and void- ab-initio. 2. That on the facts in the circumstance of the case and law, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and beyond his jurisdiction in view of the facts and circumstance of the case. 3. That on the facts in the circumstance of the case and law, the impugned order passed

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

249-333) where the flats were acquired from the declared sources admittedly by the Revenue, as no addition has been made in respect thereof under any of the respective two Acts. 22. Thus as for the purpose of the Explanation 4 u/s 139(1) of the Act, the ‘beneficial owner’ in respect of ‘an asset

APEX HOSPITAL AND TRAUMA CENTER,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD -1(1), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 249(4)(b) of the Act, ignoring the fact that no amount of advance was payable by the appellant as neither there was any admitted income nor any order u/s 210 of the Act, was passed upon the appellant determining the liability to pay advance tax. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to decide the appeal