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

147 and more when burden to prove the addition u/s 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) was on the revenue. 17. 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 rejecting the audit report u/s 10CCB and that too without

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

147 restrict assessing officer to reassess issues which have already been subject matter of appeal, reference or revision before higher authority. He submitted that in present case, third proviso is squarely applicable in respect of deduction under section 801A/80M since (a) Claim of deduction under section 80IA and consequential computation under section 801B was extensively examined/ considered and varied

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

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to 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 particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income

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

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to 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 particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income

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

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to 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 particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income

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

147 of the Act. 2.2. The Ld. AO erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in initiating proceedings under section 148 of the Act against the Assessee when there was no relevant material on record for the subject assessment years with Ld. AO so as to give rise to any valid 'reason

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. vs. DCIT, CO. CIRCLE-2(1),,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

234D is chargeable on the amount of tax which is payable in assessment u/s 147. 9.a That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the withdrawal of interest u/s 244A. 9.b. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that initiation

M/S NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 2.2 That on facts and in laws, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 9 ITA No.5126/Del./11 & 1023/Del./2013

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 2.2 That on facts and in laws, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 9 ITA No.5126/Del./11 & 1023/Del./2013

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

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

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

234D of the Act. 9.1. That the Ld. AO has in facts and in law in withdrawing interest under section 244A of the Act. 10. That the Ld. AO has erred on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law in mechanically initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the appellant

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Because in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (Appeals) in upholding the impugned order is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the impugned proceedings. 4. Because having regard

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether reassessment proceedings were initiated or not inasmuch as on merit itself we have decided that such an addition was not proper. 9. The Assessing Officer thereafter took into consideration the rent/licence fee, which was paid