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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(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. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(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. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

244A of the Act. 4. Additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Mechanical Sanction u/s 151(1) of Addl. Commissioner Range - 15: i) That the learned CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by making and upholding the re-assessment, without subjective sanction by the Addl. Commissioner, Range

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

244A. 9.b. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not appealable. 3. The assessee company filed return of income on 26.11.1999 declaring an income of Rs. 10,84,60,76,693. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

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)

147 of the Act without appreciating that the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all material facts. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AOI Ld. CIT(A) erred in completing upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings even though the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO were vague

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

u/s 143(3). 5. In this regard, the provisions of Section 153C are as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re- computation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

u/s 143(3). 5. In this regard, the provisions of Section 153C are as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re- computation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

147 of the Act, in view of the fact that once the assessment order is subject matter of 20 ITAs. 6219 & 6220/Del/2015 AND C.O. Nos. 404 & 405/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. M/s. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., ND the further appeal, reassessment cannot be framed on the same issue on issuing notice u/s 148 as the original assessment gets merged with the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

147 of the Act, in view of the fact that once the assessment order is subject matter of 20 ITAs. 6219 & 6220/Del/2015 AND C.O. Nos. 404 & 405/Del/2015 DCIT Vs. M/s. SAM Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., ND the further appeal, reassessment cannot be framed on the same issue on issuing notice u/s 148 as the original assessment gets merged with the order

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

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

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 2. That on facts

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

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

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 2. That on facts

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

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

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 2. That on facts

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

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

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 2. That on facts

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

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

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 1.2 That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned re-assessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 2. That on facts