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

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

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

Section 44 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the captioned years under appeal by the department deserved to be set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were to be restored. 2.1 With respect to the department’s appeal bearing caption No. 3509/Del/2013 for assessment year

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

Section 44 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the captioned years under appeal by the department deserved to be set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were to be restored. 2.1 With respect to the department’s appeal bearing caption No. 3509/Del/2013 for assessment year

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

Section 44 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the captioned years under appeal by the department deserved to be set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were to be restored. 2.1 With respect to the department’s appeal bearing caption No. 3509/Del/2013 for assessment year

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

Section 44 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the captioned years under appeal by the department deserved to be set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were to be restored. 2.1 With respect to the department’s appeal bearing caption No. 3509/Del/2013 for assessment year

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

Section 44 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the captioned years under appeal by the department deserved to be set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were to be restored. 2.1 With respect to the department’s appeal bearing caption No. 3509/Del/2013 for assessment year

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

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

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

Section 44 of the Act. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the captioned years under appeal by the department deserved to be set aside and the orders of the Assessing Officer were to be restored. 2.1 With respect to the department’s appeal bearing caption No. 3509/Del/2013 for assessment year

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

44 I.T.As. No. 4046, 4047 & 4048/DEL/2017 applicable. Section 153A(1) postulates one assessment, computing the total income of six assessment year. Immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted or requisition was made. Total income is assessed or reassessed

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

44 I.T.As. No. 4046, 4047 & 4048/DEL/2017 applicable. Section 153A(1) postulates one assessment, computing the total income of six assessment year. Immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted or requisition was made. Total income is assessed or reassessed

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

44 I.T.As. No. 4046, 4047 & 4048/DEL/2017 applicable. Section 153A(1) postulates one assessment, computing the total income of six assessment year. Immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted or requisition was made. Total income is assessed or reassessed

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub- section (1) of section 153A. This amendment will take effect from 1st October, 2014." 43. It was consequent to the passing of the aforesaid Act that Section 153C came to incorporate provisions relating to the AO being

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub- section (1) of section 153A. This amendment will take effect from 1st October, 2014." 43. It was consequent to the passing of the aforesaid Act that Section 153C came to incorporate provisions relating to the AO being

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub- section (1) of section 153A. This amendment will take effect from 1st October, 2014." 43. It was consequent to the passing of the aforesaid Act that Section 153C came to incorporate provisions relating to the AO being

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 and later on became subject-matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under Section 153-C read with Section 153- A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 and later on became subject-matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under Section 153-C read with Section 153- A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld

SAKSHI AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 and later on became subject-matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under Section 153-C read with Section 153- A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld

ALANKIT FINSEC LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 and later on became subject-matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under Section 153-C read with Section 153- A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 and later on became subject-matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under Section 153-C read with Section 153- A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld

PRATISHTHA IMAGES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

44 crores as deposit in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-09 and later on became subject-matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. That was challenging the validity of notice under Section 153-C read with Section 153- A. In dealing with such situation and the peculiar facts that the Delhi High Court upheld