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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST (REGD),FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

reassessment proceedings in following manners:- “It is respectfully submittedthat the fee received from students is credited under various heads, building and amalgamation funds being one of them. It is further submitted that building fund is the amount collected from Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) new admissions and it is spent for the purpose of construction of building. Amalgamation fund