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

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE 2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 / 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have passed their respective orders mechanically and without appreciating the facts and the circumstances of the case. 3. The assessment order under section 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. AO without application

ROLLS ROYCE MILITARY AERO ENGINES LTD vs. DDIT INTL. TAXATION CIRCLE-2 (1),

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 / 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have passed their respective orders mechanically and without appreciating the facts and the circumstances of the case. 3. The assessment order under section 148 read with section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. AO without application

DESIGNARCH INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

u/s 148 at their disposal to come out with the details of the deposit. 15. Our above view in respect of Rs.5,00,000/- leads to examination of applicability of Explanation-3 to Section 147 of the IT Act inserted by the Finance (No. 2 of 2009) with regard to the ground no 7 of the appeal where

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

195 ITR 539 (Ori), Choithram Begraj Lalvaney Vs CIT 197 ITR 302 (Bom). Thus, the impugned satisfaction note is illegal ab initio and the consequent all assessment orders in appeal need to be quashed. No such addition u/s 69A of the Act is permissible 8. Further, no addition u/s 69A of the Act could be made as the said section

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 has been ITA No. 920/Del./2017 10 initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 31st March, 2014 i.e., before expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions stated above, we sustain the conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A) on this count. Accordingly, Ground

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

1 )(b) of the 1922 Act (which corresponds to section 147(b) of the 1961 Act) the Hon’ble Apex Court in CWT vs Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd. (1966) 61 ITR 461 has noted such divergence of opinion on the point. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Sir Mohammad Yusuf Ismail (1944) 12 ITR 8 (Bom.) held that

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

reassessment shall be passed\nby an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner\nin respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of\nsub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year\nreferred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B,\nexcept with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”\n8. As argued