HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings had claimed the benefit of weighted deduction in respect of warehouse charges on the basis of Section 35B(1)(b)(ix) read with Rule 6AA. The point remains that the head of expenditure on account of which the weighted deduction is claimed by the applicant-company is "warehouse charges". The apex court in CIT v. Assam Frontier

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

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

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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

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

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -2 vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom) which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no additions in respect of any issue can be made to the assessment under Section 153A and 153C of the Act. The legal position was thereafter summarized in Kabul Chawla (supra) as under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERSN N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom) which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no additions in respect of any issue can be made to the assessment under Section 153A and 153C of the Act. The legal position was thereafter summarized in Kabul Chawla (supra) as under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom) which accepted the plea that if no incriminating material was found during the course of search in respect of an issue, then no additions in respect of any issue can be made to the assessment under Section 153A and 153C of the Act. The legal position was thereafter summarized in Kabul Chawla (supra) as under

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

reassessment completed on 25/03/2015 in the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to ₹ 78,80,819/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above

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

Section 124 ensures and prevents two assessments by different assessing officers, having or enforcing concurrent 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 52 of 61 jurisdiction. There cannot be and the Act does not envisage two assessments for the same year by different officers. (Reassessment order can be by a different officer). (14) In view of the decision

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

Section 124 ensures and prevents two assessments by different assessing officers, having or enforcing concurrent 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 52 of 61 jurisdiction. There cannot be and the Act does not envisage two assessments for the same year by different officers. (Reassessment order can be by a different officer). (14) In view of the decision

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 the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is also a settled law that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person

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 the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is also a settled law that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person

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 the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. It is also a settled law that the satisfaction note itself must display the reasons or basis for the conclusion that the Assessing Officer of the searched person is satisfied that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person

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