HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

2) stipulates that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under the said section, record his reasons for doing so. The Supreme Court has only carried forward this mandatory requirement by directing that the reasons which are recorded be communicated to the assessee within a reasonable period of time so that at that stage itself the assessee may point

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

2) stipulates that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under the said section, record his reasons for doing so. The Supreme Court has only carried forward this mandatory requirement by directing that the reasons which are recorded be communicated to the assessee within a reasonable period of time so that at that stage itself the assessee may point

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

C) 3907/2023, we deem it appropriate to notice the salient facts pertaining to that assessee. The writ petitioner had submitted a ROI pertaining to AY 2010-11 on 31 July 2010. Proceedings under Section 153C of the Act came to be initiated pursuant to the search of Alankit Group which was conducted on 18 October 2019. The petitioner came

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

2. Free Hold Land Lucknow 1, Bishweswhwar Nath Road, Lucknow Panchkula C-17, Sec-6, Panchkula Mumbai S.No.340, Part Aliyavar Marg, Bandra, East Mumbai. 3. Building Delhi 5-A, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-02 Lucknow 1, Bishweswhwar Nath Road, Lucknow 4. Capital Work in Progress Mumbai S.No.340, Part Aliyavar Marg, Bandra, East Mumbai. Panchkula C

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

SUSHIL KUMAR,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 44AD & 44AF of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has filed to appreciate the material on record as also before the AO, not justifying any additions towards the appellant’s income. 4. That the appellant reserves his rights to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts are that

RAJESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. SANGHPRIYA SINGH, DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. It was pointed out that both the assessees were subjected to assessment proceedings u/s 153 C of the act on account of search action undertaken u/s 132 of the Act on one Shri Manoj Kumar Singh and related entities. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that simultaneously

RAMESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. SANGHPRIYA SINGH, DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. It was pointed out that both the assessees were subjected to assessment proceedings u/s 153 C of the act on account of search action undertaken u/s 132 of the Act on one Shri Manoj Kumar Singh and related entities. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that simultaneously