M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) against judgment dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in ITA No 654/Del/2000 pertaining to assessment year 1993-94 1.1 By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is pertinent to note that

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment dated 15.02.2018 had inter alia made undisclosed source of income addition of Rs.6,00,000/- followed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S K.R. PULP AND PAPERS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‗the Act‘], inter alia, impugning an order dated 31.03.2022 [‗impugned order‘] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‗ITAT‘] in ITA No.5064/Del/2017 in respect of Assessment Year [‗AY‘] 2009-10. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 16:52:00 Signature Not Verified ITA No. 529/2023 Page

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S K.R. PULP AND PAPERS LTD.

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‗the Act‘], inter alia, impugning an order dated 31.03.2022 [‗impugned order‘] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‗ITAT‘] in ITA No.5064/Del/2017 in respect of Assessment Year [‗AY‘] 2009-10. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 16:52:00 Signature Not Verified ITA No. 529/2023 Page

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section section 149, section 151 and 148, section 149, section 151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section section 149, section 151 and 148, section 149, section 151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section section 149, section 151 and 148, section 149, section 151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents

M/S. GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section section 149, section 151 and 148, section 149, section 151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

VALMIK THAPAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18

Appeal is allowed and the additions made by the AO in the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], inter alia, impugning an order dated 11.06.2021 [ the impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.6346/Del/2014 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11. 2. The Assessee had filed the said appeal against an order dated 25.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXVI

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) pertain to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1995-96. ITA No. 1108/2010 is directed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 30th June 2009 in ITA No. 4403/Del/2007. ITA No. 1109/2010, which is the penalty appeal, is directed against the order dated 30th April 2009 in ITA No.113/Del/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHSHT CHAY VYAPAR LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) pertain to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1995-96. ITA No. 1108/2010 is directed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 30th June 2009 in ITA No. 4403/Del/2007. ITA No. 1109/2010, which is the penalty appeal, is directed against the order dated 30th April 2009 in ITA No.113/Del/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHISHTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) pertain to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1995-96. ITA No. 1108/2010 is directed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 30th June 2009 in ITA No. 4403/Del/2007. ITA No. 1109/2010, which is the penalty appeal, is directed against the order dated 30th April 2009 in ITA No.113/Del/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHISHTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) pertain to the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1995-96. ITA No. 1108/2010 is directed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 30th June 2009 in ITA No. 4403/Del/2007. ITA No. 1109/2010, which is the penalty appeal, is directed against the order dated 30th April 2009 in ITA No.113/Del/2008

CIT vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) was admitted for hearing on 10th January, 2012 and the following substantial question of law was framed:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdictional pre-conditions for reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied in the present case

MR. ABHISHEK DIXIT,GURUGRAM vs. DDIT/ADIT( IN TAX.), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 148 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer does not assess or, as the case may be reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice under section 148 then the Assessing Officer could not assess or reassess independently any other income, which does not form the subject

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is hereafter referred to as the „Act‟. The assessment years involved are 2000-01 and 2002-03 to 2005-06. 2. On 14th May, 2012, the following substantial questions of law were framed, which are common to all the six appeals and they were heard: - “1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal