BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

u/s 143(3). 5. In this regard, the provisions of Section 153C are as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re- computation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment proceedings are void as the approval under Section 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical and without application of mind. The approval is not in accordance with law. Violation of Circular No. 19/2019 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notices/orders/directions are illegal

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment proceedings are void as the approval under Section 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical and without application of mind. The approval is not in accordance with law. Violation of Circular No. 19/2019 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notices/orders/directions are illegal

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

reassessment proceedings are void as the approval under Section 151 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, mechanical and without application of mind. The approval is not in accordance with law. Violation of Circular No. 19/2019 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notices/orders/directions are illegal

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

u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

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

u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

u/s 10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

147 be held to be void ab initio and/or otherwise bad-in-Iaw. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I & II GROUND NO. III: THE ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the principles of natural

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

VIJAY KUMAR KATARIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

VIJAY KUMAR KATARIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

VIJAY KUMAR KATARIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

142A of the Act. The DVO vide its report F. No. DVO/IT/Jaipur/T 09/1/2020-21/34 dated 15.06.2021 provided his valuation report in which property has been valued in respect of construction at Rs. 1,94,56,300/- against the value of construction declared by assessee of Rs. 1,68,98,979/-. The said valuation report and the facts were confronted