ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings waiving its right to challenge the same before the Constitutional Courts under writ jurisdiction; the objections of the appellant to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO. had become infructuous & needs to be given quietus. The challenge posed by the appellant to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Id. AO. u/s. 147 of I.T. Act, 1961 is, therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings waiving its right to challenge the same before the Constitutional Courts under writ jurisdiction; the objections of the appellant to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO. had become infructuous & needs to be given quietus. The challenge posed by the appellant to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Id. AO. u/s. 147 of I.T. Act, 1961 is, therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings waiving its right to challenge the same before the Constitutional Courts under writ jurisdiction; the objections of the appellant to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO. had become infructuous & needs to be given quietus. The challenge posed by the appellant to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Id. AO. u/s. 147 of I.T. Act, 1961 is, therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment proceedings waiving its right to challenge the same before the Constitutional Courts under writ jurisdiction; the objections of the appellant to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO. had become infructuous & needs to be given quietus. The challenge posed by the appellant to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Id. AO. u/s. 147 of I.T. Act, 1961 is, therefore

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 5. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.2,13,75,229/- on account of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He rejected the contention of the respondent that the claims/entries were bona fide and lapse had occurred because the respondent was without competent professional staff due to closure of running operations

INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -1 SONEPAT, SONEPAT, HARYANA vs. OM MINIRALS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order." When the assessee has filed the application u/s 270AA for immunity from penalty and the order u/s 270AA (4) was to be passed within one month. The AO has accepted the fact that the assessee has applied for immunity under section 270AA and filed FORM-68. In a situation where order

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order dated 26.03.1999 passed by the Assessing Officer in exercise of his powers under Section 147 read with section 148 and 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. In order to deal with the present appeal the following facts need to be noticed: 2.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of production

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

reassessment proceeding is a mere change of opinion. 7. That the Ld. AO / Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in disallowing / upholding the disallowance of provision for compensated absences amounting to Rs.3,26,22,752. 7.1. That the Ld. AO / Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the said provision

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] [Explanation 4.-For the removal of doubts

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] [Explanation 4.-For the removal of doubts

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)

43B of the Act and the action of the CPC in disallowing the same was erroneous and bad in law. 86. That apart, the assessing officer erred in making double adjustment of the aforesaid disallowance inasmuch – (i) income determined under section 143(1) of the Act is taken as the starting point for computing total income wherein the adjustment

JCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

reassessment proceedings and it was replied to by the assessee. The assessing officer was satisfied with the explanation and did not raise any further questions. The Tribunal has not erred in taking the view that it took, namely, that the CIT had overlooked the agreements dt.28th Feb.1995 and 30th September, 1999 which were on the record

JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

reassessment proceedings and it was replied to by the assessee. The assessing officer was satisfied with the explanation and did not raise any further questions. The Tribunal has not erred in taking the view that it took, namely, that the CIT had overlooked the agreements dt.28th Feb.1995 and 30th September, 1999 which were on the record

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The appeal is allowed

reassessing income under Section 147 of the Act would not arise. 14. Thus, in our view, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 15. The decisions of this Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) and Software Consultants (supra) are, in our view, inapplicable to the facts pertaining to the issues

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

reassessment action, insofar as AY 2013-14 is\nconcerned, being beyond the maximum window of six\nyears would thus falter and fail on this score\nadditionally.\n\n23.\nThat takes us to the principal question and\nconcerning the legal requirements flowing from Section\n80-1A read along with Rule 12. We find that insofar as the\ndirectory nature of Section

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

43B paid before due date of filing of return as reported in column No-26(i)(B)(a) of Form No-3CO. 7. The assessee has already submitted confirmation copies of Unsecured Loans and further it is stated that no Fresh loan or amount has been added in this year. Infact the amount pertaining to interest paid has been credited

AERO CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

43B of the Act as filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act-us 36(1)va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,24,39,963/-, which is unjust and not as per the intention of the legislature vide amendment to Finance Act, 2021, and is accordingly prayed to be deleted. By That

ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O No. 70/Del/2021 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148 of the Act is bad in law deserves to be quashed as the conditions and procedures prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. The Ld. AR taken us to the paper book and submitted that reopening of assessment 6 ITA. 6300/Del/2018 AND C. O. No. 70/Del/2021 M/s. RPS Infrastructure Ltd., ND is bad without