BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject-matter of the appeal

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

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. ‖ 3. Thus, under the presently applicable provisions, the CBDT itself is not stating that notices u/ss 143/142 of the Act to be issued as was required under the earlier block assessment scheme

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

ITO, WARD-52(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARTI JINDAL , DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

2. The AO in his recorded reasons has stated that he had called for the case record of GLEBE and has perused the same. It is unbelievable that he did not note the factum of appeal filed by GLEBE before the CIT(A). The reasons are, thus, recorded by overlooking very important aspect regarding pending appeal. It is accepted

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

251 12 VAT paid on purchases 2,960,787 13 Sample courier charges 11,064,039 14 Gym charges 355,988 15 Sample expenses for manufacture, suppliers and trade shows. 23,396,979 16 Export forwarding and clearing expenses 3,569,537 17 Misc. Expenses 3,960,471 18 Sales incentive expenses 2,869,355 19 Warehouse running and maintenance

PARVEEN GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient notice to the assessee before enhancing the assessment and that Ld. CIT(A) has also given several adjournments to the Counsel for Assessee for hearing of the appeals, but, the Assessee or his Counsel did not avail the opportunity of being heard of the appeals

PARVEEN GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient notice to the assessee before enhancing the assessment and that Ld. CIT(A) has also given several adjournments to the Counsel for Assessee for hearing of the appeals, but, the Assessee or his Counsel did not avail the opportunity of being heard of the appeals

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

251, Little Falls Drive, Circle-1(1)(1) Wilmington Delaware, USA, New Delhi. USA 19808 PAN AATCA699SL (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Manish Kanth, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, Advocate and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Advocate Department by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date of 01.08.2023 pronouncement

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

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

251, Little Falls Drive, Circle-1(1)(1) Wilmington Delaware, USA, New Delhi. USA 19808 PAN AATCA699SL (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Manish Kanth, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, Advocate and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Advocate Department by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date of 01.08.2023 pronouncement