CENTRAL 1 vs. MR. SRI CHAND GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6082-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR. SRI CHAND GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6085-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. USHA RANI GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6083-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

CENTRAL 1 vs. MR. SRI CHAND GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6083-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. GIAN CHAND GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6082-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR. GIAN CHAND GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6082-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. USHA RANI GUPTA

5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:— 2015:DHC:6083-DB ITA 18, 19 & 20 of 2002 Page 12 of 17 (i) The amount of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of the said sub-section and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

5) of section 17 provides that where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, except in a case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the said reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

5) of section 17 provides that where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, except in a case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the said reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

reassessment cannot substitute fresh assessment without new materials. ix. Raghuvar India Ltd (Supra):- The Supreme Court clarified that limitation under Section 11A (5

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

reassessment order passed under section 147, in contravention of provisions of sections 149 to 151 of the Act, was invalid and bad in law. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not holding that losses of Rs.8,83,95,939 pertaining to the unit eligible for deduction under section 80IB

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

5) The order made under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) No appeal under [Section 246] or Section 246A or an application for revision under Section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings, initiated on the basis of such notices, are legally unsustainable and devoid of jurisdiction. III. Foreign Portfolio Investor Status; Withholding under Section 194LD; Exemption from Return Filing under Section 115A(5

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings, initiated on the basis of such notices, are legally unsustainable and devoid of jurisdiction. III. Foreign Portfolio Investor Status; Withholding under Section 194LD; Exemption from Return Filing under Section 115A(5

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. thereby, in respect of DCIT Vs. Ravindra Singh completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AD in absence of Meaning any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments