K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue

KUBER KHANPAN UDYOG PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are not at all applicable. 13 That the impugned appeal order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence 14 The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.‖ 4. Brief facts of the case is that Kuber Khanpan Udyog

KUBER FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are not at all applicable. 13 That the impugned appeal order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence 14 The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.‖ 4. Brief facts of the case is that Kuber Khanpan Udyog

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct

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]

u/s 147 within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, even if there is a full and true disclosure of all material facts in the original assessment’ The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “7. The crucial expression is "reason to believe". The expression predicates that AO must hold

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI

reassessment proceedings on the basis of the material available on record and accordingly, total income was assessed at INR 2,56,99,540/- by making addition of INR 1,75,59,728/- u/s 68 of the Act towards the deposits in the bank accounts and further addition of INR 35.00 Lakhs was made as notional income from house property

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

reassessment proceedings on the basis of the material\navailable on record and accordingly, total income was assessed at\nINR 2,56,99,540/- by making addition of INR 1,75,59,728/- u/s 68\nof the Act towards the deposits in the bank accounts and further\naddition of INR 35.00 Lakhs was made as notional income from\nhouse property

SJM INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(20, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

234A.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company filed return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 which was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, assessee’s case was reassessed at the returned income of Rs.58

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without serving the mandatory

MOTOROLA INC,USA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 144C(13) read with section 147 of the Act is, therefore, bad in law and requires to be annulled. Fee received by the appellant 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned

MOTOROLA INC,USA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 144C(13) read with section 147 of the Act is, therefore, bad in law and requires to be annulled. Fee received by the appellant 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the learned

GE NUOVO PIGNONE SPA,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ge Nuovo Pignone Spa Vs. Dcit, International Taxation C/O 6Th Floor, Building No.7 A Circle 1(3)(1) Standard Chartered Building New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase Iii Gurgaon 122 002 Haryana

234A, section 234B, section 234C and section 234D of the Act. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Assessee.” 3.1. The DRP passed order on 12/09/17, and upheld attribution of income by Ld.AO. ITA No. 6892/Del/2017