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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LTD., DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment order reads as under:- “In this case, the original assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2006. The details of the interest payable were filed by the appellant before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 24th March, 2011. It was categorically stated by the assessee that the provisions of section 43B

THE KADIYAN COOP. L&C SOCIETY LTD.,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess income under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. 14. On September 30, 2003, the petitioner filed its revised return under pro test, pursuant to the impugned notice under section 148. 15. The petitioner was later furnished with reasons for reopening assessment, which are practically the same as the reasons for the notice under section 154 of the Income

M/S IFCI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 43B of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of impugned reassessment proceedings stating that the proceedings have

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 43B of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of impugned reassessment proceedings stating that the proceedings have

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 43B of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of impugned reassessment proceedings stating that the proceedings have

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

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

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

M/S. NETWORK PROGRAMME (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2002-03

43B is applicable only to items mentioned in clause (a) of the said section, in view of the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in case of Sylvania Laxman 41 ITD 192.” Therefore, it was submitted, that the re-assessment proceedings are based on change of opinion, which is impermissible under the provisions of section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals of the department stand dismissed whereas the sole appeal of the

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

43B were not applicable and the 4 ITA no. 5624.Del.2011, 3480.Del.2012 ITA NO. 3509, 1347, 6243-46/Del/2013, same were overridden by Section 44 of the Act. The assessee also filed revised computation of income wherein the total income was computed as per Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals of the department stand dismissed whereas the sole appeal of the

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

43B were not applicable and the 4 ITA no. 5624.Del.2011, 3480.Del.2012 ITA NO. 3509, 1347, 6243-46/Del/2013, same were overridden by Section 44 of the Act. The assessee also filed revised computation of income wherein the total income was computed as per Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule