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

1). It empowers the AO to scrutinize that return if he considers that income has been understated or tax was underpaid. However, when a search u/s 132 takes place and materials are found indicating possible escapement of income, the statute envisages a different route for carrying out assessment or reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 which is special mechanism for bringing

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

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

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

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

36 of 142 valuation of the contract price and computation of the arm‘s length price, consequent assessments etc. are without jurisdiction and authority of law. 43. This argument on behalf of the assessees would have been weighty and perhaps justified, if the Legislature by the Finance Act, 2012 had not inserted sub-section (2B). The said Sub-Section

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

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, 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