ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

section 56(2)(viib) which is evident from the assessment order. He submitted that it is the settled position of law that the CIT(A) does not have any jurisdiction to make such additions on the issues which were never considered by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that although the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

reassessment proceedings, identity and creditworthiness of both the parties were established by filing their confirmations and the acknowledge of their return of income. The Ld. AR of the assessee further claims that in the case of M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. the assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein after considering the facts

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

reassessment proceedings, identity and creditworthiness of both the parties were established by filing their confirmations and the acknowledge of their return of income. The Ld. AR of the assessee further claims that in the case of M/s Navyuga Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. the assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein after considering the facts

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

viib) as raised in SCN u/s 263 being beyond the scope of “limited scrutiny” is also beyond the scope of section 263. 15. Reliance is placed on the following Judicial Pronouncements: i) PCIT vs. Shark Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2023] 151 taxmann.com 71 (Orissa) "9. Indeed, the Court finds that the Madras High Court has while affirming the decision

HURON BUILDERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed on this preliminary

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. (PB page 55 to 66) (vii) 13.12.2017 Petition under section 144A filed before Jt.CIT/Addl.CIT for seeking direction on validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 for the assessment year 2013-14 (year under appeal). (PB page 67 to 70) 6 I.T.A. No.6251/DEL/2019 (viii) 19.12.2017 Rejoinder submitted on this date, before

JASRATI EDUCATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

56(2)(viib) rwr 11U & 11UA(2) of the Act, on account of excess consideration received towards share premium and further Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained payment made to M/s. Bhagawati Trading Co (Prop. Sanjiv Yadav) and income was assessed at Rs. 32,59,26,640/-. 5.3 The appellant vide his submission dated 04.08.2022, available

JASRATI EDUCATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

56(2)(viib) rwr 11U & 11UA(2) of the Act, on account of excess consideration received towards share premium and further Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained payment made to M/s. Bhagawati Trading Co (Prop. Sanjiv Yadav) and income was assessed at Rs. 32,59,26,640/-. 5.3 The appellant vide his submission dated 04.08.2022, available

KRISHAN DEV VERMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHIWANI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

56(2)(viib) rwr 11U & 11UA(2) of the Act, on account of excess consideration received towards share premium and further Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained payment made to M/s. Bhagawati Trading Co (Prop. Sanjiv Yadav) and income was assessed at Rs. 32,59,26,640/-. 5.3 The appellant vide his submission dated 04.08.2022, available

M/S. SATYASHIV SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT= 8, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Satyashiv Shares & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Securities Pvt. Ltd, Tax, M-11, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aancs5482Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order was passed without making proper verification and inquiries, and is therefore, deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence can be revised u/s 263 of the income tax act as per the amended provisions of section 263 with effect from 1/6/2015. Accordingly he held that the order passed

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX VENTURES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Acit, Vs Max Venture Investment Holdings Circle-16(2), Pvt.Ltd., Max House, New Delhi. 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacd0213H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Respondent By S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv., Rohan Khare, Adv. & Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022

56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be made. In response to the show caused, the assessee vide letter dated 10.04.2019 submitted reply. The reply of the assessee is being reproduced below:- “In connection of our submissions vide Point 5 of our letter dated 04.04.2019, it is submitted that mere non issuance of shares, after receipt

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

56(2)(viib) of the Act is introduced w.e.f from 01.04.2013 cannot be applied retrospectively. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Green Infra Limited ITA No. 1162 of 2014 Dt: 16.01.2017 and CIT vs M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure