BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.) (2) The 72 (Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.) (2) The 72 (Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 44 of 61 Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, authorise

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 44 of 61 Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, authorise

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act based on the issue of an invalid notice under section 143(2) of the Act which is the primary requirement for initiation of any assessment proceedings;” Below Ground No. 3.11, the following grounds are added; Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

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

section 143(3) of the Act [@Pg.157/ PDF 162 onwards] 15.04.2021 Notice (section 148 of the Act) New regime [@ Pg.92/ PDF 97] 68. WP(C) 11498/2019 BABA LEASE & INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED 2012-13 01.01.2014 - 21.05.2014 09.02.2015 (Through ITR of Transferor 09.02.2015 (ITR of Transferor 02.11.2016 (Assessment u/s 143(3) the case of 28.03.2019 Notice to Transferor Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

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

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment or re-computation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the 'second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

B) deemed to be received by the assessee in India on account of the provision of services and facilities in connection with, or supply of plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils outside India. 6. Thus, it is clear from the perusal of section 44BB that

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

reassess total income of the other person’ of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.’ the expression ‘ such assessment year’ used in sub- section (2) of section 153C refers to ‘ the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.’ Thus, it is amply clear that

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

reassess total income of the other person’ of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.’ the expression ‘ such assessment year’ used in sub- section (2) of section 153C refers to ‘ the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.’ Thus, it is amply clear that

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

reassess total income of the other person’ of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.’ the expression ‘ such assessment year’ used in sub- section (2) of section 153C refers to ‘ the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.’ Thus, it is amply clear that

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. b) According to him valuation of shares as on 1.4.1981, made by the assessing officer is arbitrary. c) According to CIT(A), the AO could not ignore the valuation of Gulab Bhawan and the land on which it is situated as per valuation certificate of land and building of the Regd. valuer

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. b) According to him valuation of shares as on 1.4.1981, made by the assessing officer is arbitrary. c) According to CIT(A), the AO could not ignore the valuation of Gulab Bhawan and the land on which it is situated as per valuation certificate of land and building of the Regd. valuer

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. b) According to him valuation of shares as on 1.4.1981, made by the assessing officer is arbitrary. c) According to CIT(A), the AO could not ignore the valuation of Gulab Bhawan and the land on which it is situated as per valuation certificate of land and building of the Regd. valuer

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. b) According to him valuation of shares as on 1.4.1981, made by the assessing officer is arbitrary. c) According to CIT(A), the AO could not ignore the valuation of Gulab Bhawan and the land on which it is situated as per valuation certificate of land and building of the Regd. valuer