ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.S. CHAWLA & SONGS (HUF), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

section 55A of the Act which was received after the completion of reassessment proceedings, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

AKANSHA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

reassessment order is illegal, invalid and has been issued and passed without having valid jurisdiction upon the assessee. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO, despite the fact that the same has been passed violating the provisions

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant. (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. : 1967 LXIII ITR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant. (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. : 1967 LXIII ITR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant, (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. 1967 LXIII /TR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

JITINDER SINGH CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

reassessment accordingly. Whereas in the present case, the ld. Pr. CIT had passed the assessment order and assessed the income of the assessee. It was stated that the assessment order 7 ITA No. 2732/Del./2018 Jitinder Singh Chadha passed by the ld. Pr. CIT was a non-jurisdictional assessment order and the department cannot take shelter of Section 292B

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

55A of the I. T. Act. Now it is undoubtedly clear after the insertion of section 142A that the AO has the power as per law to make reference to the valuation after fulfilling the condition precedent. In my considered view though the assessee has maintained regular books of account but it is fact that the same could

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

55A of the I. T. Act. Now it is undoubtedly clear after the insertion of section 142A that the AO has the power as per law to make reference to the valuation after fulfilling the condition precedent. In my considered view though the assessee has maintained regular books of account but it is fact that the same could

PARMARTH IRON (P) LTD vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

55A of the I. T. Act. Now it is undoubtedly clear after the insertion of section 142A that the AO has the power as per law to make reference to the valuation after fulfilling the condition precedent. In my considered view though the assessee has maintained regular books of account but it is fact that the same could

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SAIDAN KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4496/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs Sh. Saidan Kapoor, J-6, 1St Floor, Ndse, Part-I, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk3289R Assessee By : Sh. Om Prakash, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

55A of the Act. However, the assessment had to be completed being the time barring matter, without considering the valuation report in respect of the property located at J-6, 1st Floor, NDSE, Part-I, New Delhi and B-7, Upper Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, as the same was not received till the passing of the assessment order

ANGEELA VASANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Angeela Vasandani, Vs Dcit, 93, Pocket-Ii, Jasola, International Taxation, New Delhi. Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi. Pan: Ahtpv3859Q

section 55A(a) of the Act cannot be applied and no reference is possible to be made to the DVO for determining the market value of the 5 property at a figure less than that shown by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had no authority to make any such reference to the DVO to determine the value

KARTAR SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

55A, 142(2A), etc. are not applicable in such cases because fair market value is not applicable under such circumstances without the option of the assessee. 6. That the ld. A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts in initiating proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of full value of sale consideration without deducting 4 Kartar Singh there

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH ARVIND KHANNA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

55A of the IT. Act, 1961 read with, section 16A(5) of the wealth Tax Act, 1957 was received which indicated that the fair market value on the date of the transfer (i.e. 30.10.2003) was determined at Rs: 9,87,08,000/-. Therefore it became apparent that a concern that had assets worth net asset value

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH ARVIND KHANNA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

55A of the IT. Act, 1961 read with, section 16A(5) of the wealth Tax Act, 1957 was received which indicated that the fair market value on the date of the transfer (i.e. 30.10.2003) was determined at Rs: 9,87,08,000/-. Therefore it became apparent that a concern that had assets worth net asset value

KUSUM MITTAL ,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

55A of the Act despite specific request by the appellant and therefore addition made is illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio. Prayer It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves to be quashed as such. It will be further held disallowance

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92(4) of the Act). 137. The question of aggregation and disaggregation of transactions when the TNM Method or even in other methods is sought to be applied, must have reference to the strength and weaknesses of the TNM Method or the applicable method. Aggregation of transactions is desirable and not merely permissible, if the nature of transaction