DEEP KOTHARI,USA vs. ASSSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 as there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the AO. 2.5 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred, both on facts and in law in not appreciating that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were just to make roving enquiries

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

reassessment order passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3()O), International Taxation, New Delhi (Ld. AO') under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, New Delhi (Ld. DRP'), assessing the income of the Appellant

DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MORADABAD, MORADABAD

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/115, Flat No. B-1, Sai Niwas, Ward 2(1), Arya Nagar, Kanpur - 208020 Moradabad ( U.P) Uttar Pradesh. Pin: 244 001 Pan :Acmpg1836E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were initiated. 3. Against order dated 29.03.2022 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 20.08.2024. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following Grounds of Appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred both

DEVENDRA KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Davendra Kumar, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Vs. H. No. 52, Vill. Barola, Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sector 49, Noida, U.P. Delhi Pin: 201 301 Pan: Caipk0485M (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order suffers from vice of computation defects including denial of credit qua pre-paid taxes. 6. That, without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in charging interest under sections 234A, 234B of the Act 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

SHYAM SUNDER ,GURURGAM vs. ITO ( CIRCLE 4(1) , GURGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

271F for failure to file the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 66 days, as the assessment order was served on 20/12/2018 whereas the appeal

FR. SAUTER AG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(3)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

Reassessment proceedings are bad-in- law 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the re-assessment proceedings under the Act in respect of AY 2012-13, in the absence of any income escaping assessment. 1.2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

AFTAB AHMAD SHAH,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

271F of the Act. 9. That the above grounds of appeal are with prejudice to each another. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter above grounds of appeal.” 4. In addition to the above grounds, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal as under: “The notice issued u/s 148 is invalid as necessary approval

AFTAB AHMAD SHAH,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

271F of the Act. 9. That the above grounds of appeal are with prejudice to each another. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter above grounds of appeal.” 4. In addition to the above grounds, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal as under: “The notice issued u/s 148 is invalid as necessary approval

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI vs. RNB INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

26. In view of the above discussion and findings, appeal- ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narinder Kumarm/S Rnb International Private Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-32, Delhi Limited, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi- 110027 Pan :..Aaccr7687L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita/845/Del/2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rnb International Pvt. Limited, Tax, Rnb House, 142A/2, Noida, Sez, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Noida- Dadri Road, U.P. 201305 (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F of the Act. Thereupon, vide letter dated 20.12.2019, AR of the assessee submitted certain details before the Assessing Officer. Ultimately the Assessing Officer proceeded to finalize the assessment on merits. 10. It may be mentioned here that vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the detailed questionnaire dated 23.10.2019, the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee

RNB INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI

26. In view of the above discussion and findings, appeal- ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narinder Kumarm/S Rnb International Private Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-32, Delhi Limited, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi- 110027 Pan :..Aaccr7687L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita/845/Del/2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rnb International Pvt. Limited, Tax, Rnb House, 142A/2, Noida, Sez, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Noida- Dadri Road, U.P. 201305 (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F of the Act. Thereupon, vide letter dated 20.12.2019, AR of the assessee submitted certain details before the Assessing Officer. Ultimately the Assessing Officer proceeded to finalize the assessment on merits. 10. It may be mentioned here that vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the detailed questionnaire dated 23.10.2019, the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed by the Ld. Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3()O), International Taxation,\nNew Delhi (Ld. AO') under section 147 read with section\n144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in pursuance to\nthe directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, New\nDelhi (Ld. DRP'), assessing the income of the Appellant

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed by the Ld. Deputy\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3()O), International Taxation,\nNew Delhi (Ld. AO') under section 147 read with section\n144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in pursuance to\nthe directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, New\nDelhi (Ld. DRP'), assessing the income of the Appellant

DEEPAK DUDEJA (L/H OF SH. MANOHAR LAL),GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Deepak Dudeja Vs Ito, [Legal Heir Of Late Shri Manohar Ward 2(4), Lal], Cw-66, Malibu Town, Gurgaon. Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. Pan-Acepl00503F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024

reassessment proceedings which are bad in law. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F

AEP INVESTMENTS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271F of the Act. 3 AEP Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. 3. M/s AEP Investments(Mauritius) Limited. (AIML) is a company incorporated in Mauritius on 15.07.2008. The Company is set-up under the laws of Mauritius as an investment holding company for making investments and holding them on a long- term basis. The Assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius

NAMITA TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2980/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 271F particularly when, the quantum appeal of the appellant is pending with CIT(A). I.T.A.No.2980/Del/2023 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has also erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 5,000/- particularly when, the appellant has proved that investment in flat was made by her husband by producing his bank statements

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

271F for non filing of ITR. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 7. After consideration of the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee u/s 249(4)(b) holding that the assessee had not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal

DHARAMBIR,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usdharambir Vs. Pr. Cit Village-Nakhrola, Naharpur, C.R. Building, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aumpd4924E (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F were however Dharambir 3 initiated for belated filing of return of income. In essence, the AO did not find any deficiency in the explanation offered by the assessee towards source of cash deposits under enquiry in the reassessment proceedings. To put it differently, in the light of material placed in the reassessment proceedings by the assessee, the belief initially

DEEP MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271F of the Act on the appellant. 3. Since, all these grounds are interrelated these are taken up together. 4. During reassessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish details immovable property purchased along with source of fund utilized to be supported by documentary evidence including the copy of bank statement. In response, the assessee submitted that he purchased