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

section 147 to 151 are not satisfied. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in reopening the impugned assessment U/S 147, more so when the appellant was searched u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

M/S. MOONSTAR SECURITIES TRADING & FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154." 16. Equally illuminating are the following observations in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) (page 117 of 328 ITR) : "However, if the assessee does not maintain separate accounts, it would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD

u/s 14A would arise only if some expenditure is said to have been incurred in relation to investment in such securities. In this regard, it is observed that the assessee made total investment of [Rs.] 6.33 crore in shares or securities resulting into exempt income. As against that share holder funds stood at [Rs.] 53.79 crore

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MOONSTAR SECURITIES TRADING & FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154." 16. Equally illuminating are the following observations in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) (page 117 of 328 ITR) : "However, if the assessee does not maintain separate accounts, it would

M/S. MOONSTAR SECURITIES TRADING & FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154." 16. Equally illuminating are the following observations in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) (page 117 of 328 ITR) : "However, if the assessee does not maintain separate accounts, it would

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GALILEO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 8. A plain reading of the provisions of section 14A(2)/ (3)suggests that the disallowance under this

MAHESHWARI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time

VRC TOWNSHIP P LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

reassessment being based merely on change of opinion, was bad in law and void ab- initio. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making an addition of Rs.19,40,928/ while computing 'book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act'), on account

U.K. PAINTS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7604/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 U.K. Paints India Ltd., Vs Acit, 19, Dda Commercial Complex, Central Circle-8, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0057C Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2020

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 11. The above provision is in a sense a taxing exception to the stream of income which

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment and change of opinion has been made as such the order passed is illegal and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,85,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment and change of opinion has been made as such the order passed is illegal and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,85,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment and change of opinion has been made as such the order passed is illegal and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,85,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment and change of opinion has been made as such the order passed is illegal and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,85,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2004-05 were quashed by Hon‘ble ITAT vide its order dated 8th January 2016 on ground that there was no tangible/incriminating material and as such on parity of reasoning and principle laid down, there is no legal basis for assuming jurisdiction u/s 153 A of I.T. Act, 1961. (iii) That scope of proceedings

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-04 vs. M/S IFCI LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

u/s 14A in respect of dividend income earned by the assessee company. (iv) The disallowance of administrative expenses and interest expenses on earning of dividend income claimed exempt, is also held / permitted by the verdict of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. United General Trust Ltd. 200 ITR 488 (SC). (v) Section 14A

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

14A r.w.r 8D at Rs.11,465/-. 3.1. Subsequently, the AO reopened the case u/s 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons. “Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s Nishit Fincan Pvt, Ltd. (PAN-AAACN3687M) PUC is a proposal for reopening the case u/s 147