RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

147 of Income Tax Act and a notice us 148 was issued to the appellant for filing of return of income. In response to the notice u/s 148 the appellant filed return of income a copy of which was made available during the course of appellate proceedings. 4.3.23 On perusal of the return of income it is noted that

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

147 of Income Tax Act and a notice us 148 was issued to the appellant for filing of return of income. In response to the notice u/s 148 the appellant filed return of income a copy of which was made available during the course of appellate proceedings. 4.3.23 On perusal of the return of income it is noted that

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

147 of Income Tax Act and a notice us 148 was issued to the appellant for filing of return of income. In response to the notice u/s 148 the appellant filed return of income a copy of which was made available during the course of appellate proceedings. 4.3.23 On perusal of the return of income it is noted that

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

147 of Income Tax Act and a notice us 148 was issued to the appellant for filing of return of income. In response to the notice u/s 148 the appellant filed return of income a copy of which was made available during the course of appellate proceedings. 4.3.23 On perusal of the return of income it is noted that

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

147 of Income Tax Act and a notice us 148 was issued to the appellant for filing of return of income. In response to the notice u/s 148 the appellant filed return of income a copy of which was made available during the course of appellate proceedings. 4.3.23 On perusal of the return of income it is noted that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT – A income from the above disallowances and allow the appeal of the assessee to these extent

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

business of manufacturing and trading of rice. It filed its return of income on 2/10/2003 declaring total income of Rs. 2555011/– after availing deduction u/s 80 HHC at INR 3 8289254/- and under section 80 G of INR 1 77500/–. This return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the income tax act on 20/1/2004 at the returned income. Assessment u/s

SHEELA FOAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4096/Del/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2005-06 Sheela Foam Ltd., C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacs0189B Vs The Dcit, Central Circle-6, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110016

reassessment order dated 28.03.2013 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab initio in as much as same has been passed without issuing and serving the jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) of the Act.” 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Business and income from other sources e.g. interest. After filing of Return of Income with Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(1), New Delhi, the Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer) transferred the Return of Income along with other document such as notices issued till date, proceeding sheet etc. (assessment folder) to Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(5), New Delhi

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Business and income from other sources e.g. interest. After filing of Return of Income with Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(1), New Delhi, the Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer) transferred the Return of Income along with other document such as notices issued till date, proceeding sheet etc. (assessment folder) to Income Tax Officer, Ward 65(5), New Delhi

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

business, capital gains and other sources. For assessment year 2010 – 11 assessee filed his return of income on 26/07/2010 declaring total income of Rs 29,102,041/–. Such return was processed u/s 143 (1) of The Income Tax Act [The Act] on 8 April 2011 at the same income. No assessment took place thereafter. 10. Assessee has inherited a property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

business, capital gains and other sources. For assessment year 2010 – 11 assessee filed his return of income on 26/07/2010 declaring total income of Rs 29,102,041/–. Such return was processed u/s 143 (1) of The Income Tax Act [The Act] on 8 April 2011 at the same income. No assessment took place thereafter. 10. Assessee has inherited a property

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

business, capital gains and other sources. For assessment year 2010 – 11 assessee filed his return of income on 26/07/2010 declaring total income of Rs 29,102,041/–. Such return was processed u/s 143 (1) of The Income Tax Act [The Act] on 8 April 2011 at the same income. No assessment took place thereafter. 10. Assessee has inherited a property

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

business carried out by the assessee and vice versa at the market value of such goods and in the process showing more than normal profits of the eligible undertaking and so, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. It is noted in para 8 of the impugned reassessment order of AO that he has after recording reasons

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

business carried out by the assessee and vice versa at the market value of such goods and in the process showing more than normal profits of the eligible undertaking and so, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. It is noted in para 8 of the impugned reassessment order of AO that he has after recording reasons

MADAN MOHAN TIWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 29(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

business but was carrying on profession of engineering. 6.4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that Assessing Officer could not have proceeded with assessment without waiting for 30 days after passing order of rejection to 3 | P a g e objections made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. UDAI SHANKER AWASTHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

business according to a set of rules or system in terms of Section 34 of the Evidence Act but it is simply a paper created by the staff of Rajeev Saxena for the investigating agencies. It is thus, not a contemporaneous document and the entries contained therein are prima facie not admissible.” 14. The Learned AR also placed reliance

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and ld. representatives both the sides have not placed any arguments on the other grounds of assessee on merits, therefore, we don’t deem it proper to adjudicate those grounds in absence of any arguments. 24.1 In the result, the appeal of assessee for AY 2011-12 is allowed

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and ld. representatives both the sides have not placed any arguments on the other grounds of assessee on merits, therefore, we don’t deem it proper to adjudicate those grounds in absence of any arguments. 24.1 In the result, the appeal of assessee for AY 2011-12 is allowed