FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

80G of the Act in the reassessment proceedings, which was not claimed in the original return. It is clear from the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that proceedings under section

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80G of the Act at the same figure as was done in the revised return of income. The Assessing Officer, however, by an order dated 18th December, 2000 framed an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act at `34,31,020/-. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under Section

ADIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANISATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT., NEW DELHI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

80G for more than last 27 years with the following objects : (i) To sponsor, conduct and collaborate with research, investigations and studies on management subjects, specially in the area of organization development in industry, health, environment, agriculture, and rural sectors, and propagate and make use of the results thereof. (ii). To conduct, organize, participate in and otherwise associate with seminars

JAKSON LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant craves to add or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ (a) That on the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant craves to add or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ (a) That on the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant craves to add or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ (a) That on the facts

BRIJBASI EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL III, NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

80G thereof. The Appellant filed its return of income on 14th September, 2006 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and pursuant thereto, an Assessment Order under section 143(3) was passed on 15th December 2008. The Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] who confirmed the same vide

VISHWADHARMAYATAN TRUST vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80G of the Act on 11th February 1983. 3. On 1st November 1996 the Income Tax Department („Department‟) undertook a search at the premises of the Assessee at C-18-19, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi under Section 132 of the Act. It is claimed that during the search certain documents were seized and an inventory was prepared. Notices were

RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

reassessment order was passed without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 151.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee individual is a wholesaler and distributor of medicines. He filed his return for AY 2010-11 on 09.12.2010 declaring income of Rs. 3,95,130/-. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued

M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

reassessment. In our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also equivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for example, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the intimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant times. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Jindal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

reassessment. In our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also equivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for example, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the intimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant times. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of Jindal

GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD.,, NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD., NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

GUJRAT GUARDIAN LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

SHREE CHANDI MAA MAHAKALI PRACHIN MANDIR SIDH PEETH SAMITI,SONIPAT vs. CPC, BANGLORE

reassessment.\nIn our view intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act are also\nequivalent to the order of assessment for certain provisions for\nexample, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated against the\nintimation passed by the assessing officer, as it stood at relevant\ntimes. Recently, coordinate bench of the Delhi ITAT in the case of\nJindal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SURESH JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 369/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 370/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 374/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Suresh Jain Circle-38(1), C-29, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpj6507G Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Sumit Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 29.11.2001 Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Xxviii, New Delhi For The Assessment Year 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2006-2007. Since The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 10(37), the capital gain arisen from the acquisition of the land amounting to Rs.58,17,070/- is brought to tax. Accordingly an addition of Rs.58,17,070/- is made to the returned income. 3. Since the assessee has not produced the vouchers in respect of expenses claimed, wrongly claimed loss from the firm M/s Ridge Court Bowling Centre