CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GHAZIABAD vs. ZILA SAHIKARI BANK LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal and cross objection both are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraita No:- 3/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act the AO had recorded wrong reasons as the appellant had not claimed additional deduction of 5% as stated in the reasons recorded by the AO. Instead the appellant had claimed deduction at the rate of 7.5% as per Section 36(1)(viia

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

36(1) (viia) without first issuing a note under section 148.” 10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 similarly held that “items of income said to have escaped assessment on which reassessment

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

36(1) (viia) without first issuing a note under section 148.” 10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 similarly held that “items of income said to have escaped assessment on which reassessment

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

36(1) (viia) without first issuing a note under section 148.” 10. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 similarly held that “items of income said to have escaped assessment on which reassessment

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

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

viia) that governs the taxation of receipts of shares of a company, the AO could not have invoked Section 28(iv) of the Act in respect of such transaction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I TO VI GROUND NO. VII: REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ("DVO") BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

36. The aforenoted appeal which stood tagged with the batch poses the following question of law for our consideration: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and on facts in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.05.2019 and the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section