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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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