DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. thereby, in respect of DCIT Vs. Ravindra Singh completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AD in absence of Meaning any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. thereby, in respect of DCIT Vs. Ravindra Singh completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AD in absence of Meaning any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FRIGOGLASS INDIA PRIVATE LTD., GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal and Assessee’s Cross objection stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act that the relaxed time limit should be applicable to all the live unabsorbed depreciation subsisting as on the date of introduction of amended provision. It is held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Motor and General Finance Ltd. 80 taxmann.com 14, "where in the Hon'ble court

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

reassess such income in terms of Section 147/148 read with section 150. (iii) That the Assessing Officer, may if found necessary initiate fresh proceedings within 60 days from date of disposal of this application following the procedure stipulated in section 147-151 of the Act as is in force now." 4.1.ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

reassess such income in terms of Section 147/148 read with section 150. (iii) That the Assessing Officer, may if found necessary initiate fresh proceedings within 60 days from date of disposal of this application following the procedure stipulated in section 147-151 of the Act as is in force now." 4.1.ii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated

M/S. HIMGIRI METALS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raohimgiri Metals (P) Ltd, Jcit, C/O.Rra Taxindia, Range-1, Vs. D-28, South Extension, Muzzafarnagar, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aaach7613P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 1996, it is established that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and set off for unabsorbed depreciation could not have been allowed for the A.Y. 2006-07 as the period of 8 years expired in A.Y. 2005-06. There was a clear link between the material facts

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section providing for a deduction whereas prior to the substitution the earlier provision was in the nature of an exemption. It was thus held that the basis on which the assessment was sought to be ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 22 of 32 reopened was wrong and the reassessment

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section providing for a deduction whereas prior to the substitution the earlier provision was in the nature of an exemption. It was thus held that the basis on which the assessment was sought to be ITA Nos.347/2011 & 2067/2010 Page 22 of 32 reopened was wrong and the reassessment

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

SAKSHI AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32

ALKA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

reassessment under section 147. They also contended that if the stand of the respondents were to be accepted, namely that the reopening of any AY would be justified notwithstanding no incriminating material specific to that year having been gathered, the same would clearly result in manifest arbitrariness. 32