NEETU TAYAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

249(4)(b), more so when there is no violation of that section as the assessee has filed her return on 31-03-2011 and tax paid on the returned income. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the same in limine

JAIKARAN NAGAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings u/s 148/148A of the Act and further erred on law and facts in making the addition of Rs. 79,81,000/- applying the provisions of Sec-115BBE of the Act, in terms of the assessment order, whereas the entire assessment proceedings has been made in gross violation of the assessment procedure prescribed under the Act, as in force

AP GOYAL CHARITABLE TRUST,EAST DELHI, DELHI INDIA vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 249(4) of the Act. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that primarily case of the assessee is fully covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anors vs. Rajiv Bansal in Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 wherein it is held if the notice is issued u/s 148 under

WARM FORGINGS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1148/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Warm Forgings P. Ltd., Dcit Plot No.117 & 118, A-3, Vs. Circle 27(1), Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcc7684C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

b) the actual premises and the person searched as per the relevant search warrants / panchnama, (c) name of the persons who actually deposed against the appellant about the impugned additions as accommodation entries, (d) contents of the statements of the said deponents, (e) the actual material found in the alleged search which was adverse to the appellant. (ii) because

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed. (2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from the end of the month in which the order referred

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)

249(Asr) b. Dr Rajat Saurabh Chaterji- Reported in 47 CCH 135(Del) c. Vikaram Munishwarlal Vs ITO reported in 50 CCH 133(Pune) d. Cargo Clearing case -307 ITR 1(Guj) e. V.n.Khandge Pune Bench copy of the decision is annexed in Decisions PB 16. In all above cases it has been held that where the provisions of section

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)

249(Asr) b. Dr Rajat Saurabh Chaterji- Reported in 47 CCH 135(Del) c. Vikaram Munishwarlal Vs ITO reported in 50 CCH 133(Pune) d. Cargo Clearing case -307 ITR 1(Guj) e. V.n.Khandge Pune Bench copy of the decision is annexed in Decisions PB 16. In all above cases it has been held that where the provisions of section

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

u/s 143(2) has not expired. The only requirement for the AO is to show that there is escapement of income subject to provisions of section 149(time limit for issue of notice) and 151( sanction for issue of notice) of the Act. It is clearly provided in clause b to Explanation- 2 to section 147 of the Act that

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

u/s 143(2) has not expired. The only requirement for the AO is to show that there is escapement of income subject to provisions of section 149(time limit for issue of notice) and 151( sanction for issue of notice) of the Act. It is clearly provided in clause b to Explanation- 2 to section 147 of the Act that

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

b) In terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act, proceedings under that section could be validly initiated beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant year only if there was any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. That being

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

b) In terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act, proceedings under that section could be validly initiated beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant year only if there was any failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. That being

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

249(4)(b). This is mandatory. This requirement has not been complied with. 24. However, we would not like to decide and dispose of the appeals on the present reasoning, in view of the questions of law that have been admitted above, which are on a different aspect. We have referred to the said Section as to clarify the legal

MADHULIKA MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(5), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. Ito Madhulika Mishra B-1501, Tower-4, Enchante, Ward – 5(1)(5) Lodha New Cuffe Parade, Noida Wadala East, Mumbai-400 022 Pan No. Asppm 9325 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalen, C.A. & Shri Kirit Vasan. R. C.A. Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

u/s 249(4)(b): 2.1 The Income-tax Officer Ward 5(2)(1), Budh Nagar, Noida completed the reassessment under section 147

NISHIT FINCAP P. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 18(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2008-09]

4. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The AO also supplied the reasons recorded to the assessee. The assessee vide letter dated 16.11.2015 submitted that the return of income already filed u/s 139 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued