PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

256 ITR1, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT versus Kelvinator of India Ltd (supra). 4.8.1 Before we proceed to adjudicate on these two issues raised, it is relevant to reproduce the proviso under section 147 of the Act as under: “147……………………………………………………………………….. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment is progressively being reduced which shows the conscious intent of the Legislature to ensure speedy finality and certainty of the taxpayer‘s liability. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that non-obstante provisionin section 144C(13) is to be interpreted having regard to the stated intent of the Legislature to expedite the dispute resolution process. Accordingly

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment is progressively being reduced which shows the conscious intent of the Legislature to ensure speedy finality and certainty of the taxpayer‘s liability. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that non-obstante provisionin section 144C(13) is to be interpreted having regard to the stated intent of the Legislature to expedite the dispute resolution process. Accordingly

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

reassessment proceedings. In the absence of any material having been produced by the Revenue to show that the transaction of sale and lease back wee- not 'genuine or was bogus, there was no reason to interfere within the concurrent findings arrived at both by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arose for determination

M/S. M.G. CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

256(Del)- Authored by Hon‟ble T.S.Thakur ji b. CIT Vs Nayana P Dedhia reported in 270 ITR 572(AP) c. Aggrwal Farms Vs ITO 85 TTJ 723(Del) 23 It is next submitted that the CIT-(A) has failed to appreciate that no assessments were pending (except for AY 2010-11) on the date of search and hence quantum

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

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

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

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

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

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

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

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

reassessment under section 147 and various authorities on this point had been considered by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (1999) 151 CTR (Guj) 533. A full bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT, Delhi-II vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

M/S. U.P. DISTILLERY ASSOCIATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme

M/S NARANG DISTILLERY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

1) was not made, the service of a notice under section 7(2) of the Act was the only method for initiation of a valid assessment proceeding under the Act. The period of two years under section 7(2) was a fetter on the power of the authority and was not just a bar of time. It was the scheme