COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

272A(2)(k) of the Act, thereby, penalizing the assesseee for non-deduction of TDS and for failure to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within time prescribed in sub Section 3 of Section 200 or the proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 206 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order

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

e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses what was the basis of treating Himanshu Verma as entry provider and what was the connecting link between Himanshu Verma and assessee here in as it is not mentioned in reasons that what the nature of operation conducted by revenue on Himanshu Verma and what were the key findings of said operation which were divulged

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

e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses what was the basis of treating Himanshu Verma as entry provider and what was the connecting link between Himanshu Verma and assessee here in as it is not mentioned in reasons that what the nature of operation conducted by revenue on Himanshu Verma and what were the key findings of said operation which were divulged

RAM NARAYAN BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 32, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment framed under section 153A r.w.s 143(3)\nare in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Act and\nas such the same is bad in eyes of law.\n\n(ii) That the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the contention of the assessee\nthat the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal

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

272A(1 )(d)/ 271(1 )(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 12. The writ petition thereafter came to be instituted on 27 March 2023. On the first date of consideration and more particularly on 28 March 2023, an interim order was passed to the effect that while the AO would have liberty to continue the reassessment proceedings, any Digitally

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

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

reassessment proceedings. 2. The Appellant prays that the order be held as illegal having been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice which are applicable to all the income-tax proceedings and mandate that the assessee be given a fair opportunity of hearing before making any addition/disallowance. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I, II AND III GROUND

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S S.S. CON-BUILD PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, S.S.Con-Build Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-14, Vs Flat No.4, R.R. Apartment, Room No.354, 3-4, Mangolpuri, Mehrauli, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110030. Jhandewalan Extn., Pan-Aajcs7477F New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. B.K.Dhingra, Adv. Date Of Hearing 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2021

E-2, ARA Centre, New Delhi-110030. Jhandewalan Extn., PAN-AAJCS7477F New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. B.K.Dhingra, Adv. Date of Hearing 31.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is directed against the order of learned

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. IV. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts

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