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

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 21(1), DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

56(2)(viia) of the Act was made. Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:08.05.2024 15:45:04 Signature Not Verified ITA 124/2020 and connected matters Page 4 of 22 On the question of jurisdiction the AO has held that the order under Section 127 of the Act was made in the Income Tax Business Application [―ITBA‖] system

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

56(2)(viia) that governs the taxation of receipts of shares of a company, the AO could not have invoked Section 28(iv) of the Act in respect of such transaction. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I TO VI GROUND NO. VII: REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER ("DVO") BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 142A

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

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

2,59,715/-. I have therefore reasons to believe that income of Rs. 59,725/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the AO subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section. Notice under section

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

2,59,715/-. I have therefore reasons to believe that income of Rs. 59,725/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the AO subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section. Notice under section

LAMBA BRICKS PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. ACIT, BHIWANI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

2,59,715/-. I have therefore reasons to believe that income of Rs. 59,725/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the AO subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section. Notice under section

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

viia) and 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of Rs. 350428356/-. The claim was based on the belief that the main object of the assessee is to promote Housing Finance Companies. However, the ld Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee for the following reasons:- “9. I have carefully considered