EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

section 1448 of IT Act, the case was duly transferred to the jurisdiction AO, who has no previous idea about the assessment proceedings in the case. However it is pointed out, that, even during the DRP stage and even after providing opportunity by AO, the assessee could not submit any evidence with respect to bank statement of assessee and also

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

Section in which No. Order dated order is passed 1 4153/Del/2025 Revenue 2012-13 31.03.2023 147 of the Act 2. 2708/Del/2025 Assessee 2013-14 31.03.2023 -do- 3. 2709/Del/2025 -do- 2014-15 31.03.2023 -do- 4. 2710/Del/2025 -do- 2015-16 31.03.2023 -do- 5. 2711/Del/2025 -do- 2016-17 31.03.2023 -do- 6. 2712/Del/2025 -do- 2017-18 31.03.2023 -do- 7. 2713/Del/2025

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

36 of 61 in the assumption of jurisdiction and the orders of assessment in those proceedings cannot be held to be without jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impeaching them on the ground that Section 10(1) had not been followed. This must a fortiori be so when the appellant has itself submitted to the jurisdiction and made

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

36,511/- on account of depreciation\ndisallowable u/s 32(1)(ii) and 32(1)(iia) of the Act.\n3.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation was carried out on\n22.10.2020 on Shri Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah for which the case of assessee was\nopened vide notice u/s 153C of the Act, in response to which assessee filed\nreturn of income

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under sub-section (1). This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1989.” 9.2.4 As self evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2008, the new section 271(1B) was inserted with the intention to give validity to the ‘satisfaction’ made

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year, proceedings for which have been completed before the 1st day of July, 2012. *Inserted by the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1-6-2002. *** Inserted by the Finance

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

36,27,600/ on account of service charges\nearned from various clients for facilitating, supervising and overseeing the work\noutsourced by them to outside vendors/contractors which was inadvertently missed\nwhile filing original return of income and due taxes alongwith interest as per law\nwere paid thereon. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.02.2023\nfollowed

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner