DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objections of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act against the assessee for A.Y 2001-02 beyond four years cannot be held as invalid assumption of jurisdiction and finally part conclusion 29 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 of the ld. CIT(A) on legal contention and objection of the assessee are upheld. Since facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objections of the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act against the assessee for A.Y 2001-02 beyond four years cannot be held as invalid assumption of jurisdiction and finally part conclusion 29 CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/2010 of the ld. CIT(A) on legal contention and objection of the assessee are upheld. Since facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

147 and 24. issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act are hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ” (ii) Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., reported as 395 ITR 677 (Delhi), dated of order 26.05.2017. It has been noted in paras 35 till 38, as follows

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

147 of the act 1961. If approved notice u/s 148 may be issued for the assessment year 2007 – 08, in this case the assessment u/s 143 (3) has been completed wide order dated 31/12/2009. Hence approval of CIT ( C ) –I , New Delhi is requested as per provisions of Section 151 (1) of the IT Act, for issuance of notice u/s

PURI OIL MILLS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment is valid if there is a prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. It is the case of the Department that after the amendment of Section 147 w.e.f. 01/04/1989 the scope of Section 147 of the Act has been considerably widened the only requirement under the amended Section is that A.O. must have reason to believe

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment is valid if there is a prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. It is the case of the Department that after the amendment of Section 147 w.e.f. 01/04/1989 the scope of Section 147 of the Act has been considerably widened the only requirement under the amended Section is that A.O. must have reason to believe

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

u/s 68. 4.8 The A.O. has applied section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant provisions of section 68 are reproduced as under: "68. Cash credits 25 Krishan Devi Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI vs. APPLE COMMODITIES LTD. , GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

reassessment made u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act based on notice u/s 148, we first take up\nthe grounds in cross objection of the assessee.\n\n5. Assessee in its cross objection raised the following grounds:\n\n1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe notice u/s 148 of the Income

J.D. SONS STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 151 was accorded in a mechanical manner. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PHOOL CHAND BAJRANG LAL AND ANOTHER VS. ITO &ANOTHER 203 ITR 456 (SC) the head note for which reads as below: "Sufficiency of reasons for reopening assessments is not for the court to judge. Section

MAGPPIE EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

196/- Profit on sale of licence as declared by the assessee 3,54,367/- Profit of the business from export activity Profit u/s 28 as above 188,45,458/- Less: Deduction u/s 80IA as calculated above 47,11,364/- 141,64,094/- Less: Supervision charges & prior period income As discussed above 27,748/- 141,06,346/- Less: 90% DEPB

MAGPPIE EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

196/- Profit on sale of licence as declared by the assessee 3,54,367/- Profit of the business from export activity Profit u/s 28 as above 188,45,458/- Less: Deduction u/s 80IA as calculated above 47,11,364/- 141,64,094/- Less: Supervision charges & prior period income As discussed above 27,748/- 141,06,346/- Less: 90% DEPB

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

196,70,79,113 Deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of various independent/ 1. eligible power generating undertakings 2. Deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of MBF unit 41,20,57,046 3. 16,92,26,199 Deduction under section 80IB of the Act in respect of other independent/ eligible units Total

INS FINANCE & INVESTMENT P LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 12(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is defined with reference to reasons recorded and in absence of any fresh notice u/s 148 or approval u/s 151 in respect of other issues, the assessing officer was bereaved from making roving enquiry or investigation in respect of issues falling outside the reasons. (iv) That assessing officer having exceeded his jurisdiction u/s 147 and there

E.I. DUPONT PRIVATE LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

147 the AO recorded reasons as under :- 3 CO. No. 2357/Del/2011 “Reasons for notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 On verification of the case records, it has been observed that the assessee has made and allowed the following claims/deductions: I. The assessee has deducted an amount of Rs. 8,12,28,282/- on account of provisions for section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S E.I. DUPONT INDIA (P) LTD., GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2004-05

147 the AO recorded reasons as under :- 3 CO. No. 2357/Del/2011 “Reasons for notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 On verification of the case records, it has been observed that the assessee has made and allowed the following claims/deductions: I. The assessee has deducted an amount of Rs. 8,12,28,282/- on account of provisions for section

SPECO TECH ROOFING AND CELLING SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

u/s 147/148. I have considered the facts of the case, observations of the AO and submissions of the appellant. For reopening, an assessment made under Section 148 of the Act, the following conditions are required to be satisfied:- (i) The Assessing Officer must form a tentative or prima facie opinion on the basis of material that there is underassessment

BEHL PROMOTERS & REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

196 of the paper book-4 as per which jurisdiction of the assessee was changed by passing of order u/s 127 of the Act dated 22.03.2013 and the above said information was collected by the assessee through RTI and further submitted that the charge was transferred from CC-21 to CC-15. Further by reference to page

BEHL PROMOTERS & REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

196 of the paper book-4 as per which jurisdiction of the assessee was changed by passing of order u/s 127 of the Act dated 22.03.2013 and the above said information was collected by the assessee through RTI and further submitted that the charge was transferred from CC-21 to CC-15. Further by reference to page