PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

B with Statement of Facts and Ground of\nAppeal filled with CIT (A)\n6\nCopy of Representation before CIT(A)-4 dated 29/10/15\n7\nCopy of Notice under section 148 Dated 11/03/2013 issued by\nDCIT Cir 11(1)\n8\nLetter dated 19.03.2014 by the assessee to DCIT Circle 11(1)\nasking the reason for re-opening of assessment.\n9\nCopy

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

b) investment in NHAI bonds on 9/12/2009 out of advance ₹ 50,00,000/- Section 54EC reads as under:- (1) where the capital gain arises from transfer of a long-term capital asset and (2) proviso to Section 54EC reads as Under:- [Provided that the investment made on or after first day of April 2007 in the long-term specified assets

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

b) investment in NHAI bonds on 9/12/2009 out of advance ₹ 50,00,000/- Section 54EC reads as under:- (1) where the capital gain arises from transfer of a long-term capital asset and (2) proviso to Section 54EC reads as Under:- [Provided that the investment made on or after first day of April 2007 in the long-term specified assets

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

b) investment in NHAI bonds on 9/12/2009 out of advance ₹ 50,00,000/- Section 54EC reads as under:- (1) where the capital gain arises from transfer of a long-term capital asset and (2) proviso to Section 54EC reads as Under:- [Provided that the investment made on or after first day of April 2007 in the long-term specified assets

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 and the consequent order u/s 147 are bad in law as: a. The initiation of proceedings u/s 148 are contrary to provisions of law. b. The mandatory procedure laid down in the Act has not been followed. c. The information has been collected behind the back

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

reassessment proceedings ignoring the fact that initiation of the proceedings u/s 148 and the consequent order u/s 147 are bad in law as: a. The initiation of proceedings u/s 148 are contrary to provisions of law. b. The mandatory procedure laid down in the Act has not been followed. c. The information has been collected behind the back

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime along

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

u/s 153D of the Act, signifies a product\nof human thoughts based on the given set of facts and interpretation of the applicable\nlaw. It provides equality in treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness.\nIt also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to\nthe specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime along

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case under

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case under

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

section 1448 of IT Act, the case was duly transferred to the jurisdiction AO, who has no previous idea about the assessment proceedings in the case. However it is pointed out, that, even during the DRP stage and even after providing opportunity by AO, the assessee could not submit any evidence with respect to bank statement of assessee and also

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

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

B" i.e. person other than "A". 4. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since no incrementing material was found during search allegedly conducted on the Appellant, therefore, direction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16 was beyond the scope

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

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

B" i.e. person other than "A". 4. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) did not appreciate that since no incrementing material was found during search allegedly conducted on the Appellant, therefore, direction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16 was beyond the scope

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

b) of the Act was based and the AO could not supplement or improve upon reason, which formed the basis for initiating action u/s 148A and therefore held that since foundational material alone would be relevant for purposes of evaluating whether reassessment powers were justifiably invoked and since it was not and therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

b) of the Act was based and the AO could not supplement or improve upon reason, which formed the basis for initiating action u/s 148A and therefore held that since foundational material alone would be relevant for purposes of evaluating whether reassessment powers were justifiably invoked and since it was not and therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed