MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, 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:

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

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:

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2), (3) and (3A)] shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2), (3) and (3A)] shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1-A), (2), (3) and (3A)] shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 33. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 34. To sum-up, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed. 6.3. Same view have been taken by ITAT, Delhi E- Bench in the case of M/s. NKG Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)2 vs. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY LTD. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

1) and (2) of Section 153 of the Act do not apply to any assessment, reassessment or recomputation which is made, inter alia, to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed under Section 263

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

263 upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, stating that there can be no addition in the hands of a company for moneys received towards share capital. The Court held that, if necessary, the Revenue may reopen the assessment of the shareholders to bring to tax the alleged undisclosed amount.  CIT v. ARL Infratech

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year, proceedings for which have been completed before the 1st day of July, 2012. *Inserted by the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1-6-2002. *** Inserted by the Finance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

263 referred to by the CIT (Central-II) above, the CIT observed that the A.O. had imposed penalty on the concealed income of only `4,00,000/-, whereas in the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 153A, the assessee had declared additional income of `21,65,932/-. Therefore, the CIT ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

263 referred to by the CIT (Central-II) above, the CIT observed that the A.O. had imposed penalty on the concealed income of only `4,00,000/-, whereas in the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 153A, the assessee had declared additional income of `21,65,932/-. Therefore, the CIT ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

263 referred to by the CIT (Central-II) above, the CIT observed that the A.O. had imposed penalty on the concealed income of only `4,00,000/-, whereas in the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 153A, the assessee had declared additional income of `21,65,932/-. Therefore, the CIT ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED

SUPERIOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

1) M/s. Hillridge Investments Ltd., (2) M/s. Vogue Leasing & Finance Private Limited (3) M/s. Pelicon Finance & Leasing Limited, and (4) M/s. Pitambara Securities Pvt. Ltd., A.O. disposed of the objections of the 30 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi