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.

u/s 263 for the impugned assessment year, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment order was set aside by the CIT exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to the limited extent of examining issues relating to deduction under sections 80lA/80IB of the Act. In other words, the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 under section 147

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment proceedings on the same set of material evidences falls under the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 8. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements, inter alia, including the one pronounced by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment proceedings on the same set of material evidences falls under the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 8. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements, inter alia, including the one pronounced by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment proceedings on the same set of material evidences falls under the mischief of first proviso to section 147. 8. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed his reliance upon catena of judicial pronouncements, inter alia, including the one pronounced by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

269 ITR 338 ii) (Cal) 5.2 So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. After the amendment of section 147 w. e. f. 01.04.1989, the scope of section 147 has been considerably widened. After the amendment, the only requirement under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

269 ITR 338 ii) (Cal) 5.2 So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. After the amendment of section 147 w. e. f. 01.04.1989, the scope of section 147 has been considerably widened. After the amendment, the only requirement under

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

269 ITR 338 (Cal.) 6.8. So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus where there is information, after the assessment is made or even where time for filing return has passed, reassessment is unavoidable if the AO acts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

269 ITR 338 (Cal.) 6.8. So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus where there is information, after the assessment is made or even where time for filing return has passed, reassessment is unavoidable if the AO acts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

269 ITR 338 (Cal.) 6.8. So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus where there is information, after the assessment is made or even where time for filing return has passed, reassessment is unavoidable if the AO acts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

269 ITR 338 (Cal.) 6.8. So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus where there is information, after the assessment is made or even where time for filing return has passed, reassessment is unavoidable if the AO acts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

269 ITR 338 (Cal.) 6.8. So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus where there is information, after the assessment is made or even where time for filing return has passed, reassessment is unavoidable if the AO acts

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

147 and the notice u/s 148 ofilT Act, 1961 dated 01.04.2015. Notice u/s 142(1) cum questionnaire dated 14.12.2015 issued for the hearing 30.12.2015. The assessee has not made compliance to the notice issued u/s 148 of I. T. Act, 1961. In response to this notice the assessee filed a letter dated 17.08.2016, wherein the assessee has requested to supply

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. QUALITY SALES PROMOTION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Quality Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

u/s 148 which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph does not show any allegation by the Assessing Officer regarding any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the 14 C.O. No.80/Del/2017 assessment. Therefore, the 1st proviso to section 147 are clearly applicable to the facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 153A has not been mentioned, earlier assessed income has not been mentioned even though AO has mentioned "Yes" in S. No. 14, wherein, first proviso to section 147 is applicable, the same is not recorded in the reasons recorded. Learned AO even mentions wrong figure in S. No. 10 with regards to total income assessed earlier. Learned PCIT approved

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PAVITRA TREXIM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2007-08 Acit, Central Circle- 30, Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 13, Ground Floor, Room No.5, Vs. B.B. Ganguli Street, Punarnava, Kolkata.

u/s 148 which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph does not show any allegation by the Assessing Officer regarding any failure on the part of the assessee to 14 C.O. No.79/Del/2017 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment. Therefore, the 1st proviso to section 147 are clearly applicable to the facts

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

269 ITR 19 (SC). 6. That under the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as much as in fact in upholding the addition of Rs.29,49,000/- u/s 69A of Act, by treating the amount of cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained. Such addition is bad in law and section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

147 of the income tax act has to prima facie show his own satisfaction that the income has escaped assessment. He is not obliged to determine the correct amount of the escaped income at the time of recording the reasons. It is also correct that if that is done at the time of recording of the reasons there is nothing

JINDAL PIPES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Jindal Pipes Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.5, 2Nd Floor, Circle 4(1), Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacj2055K)

Section 147. If this condition is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action u/s 147 could be taken. We have already mentioned above that the reasons supplied to the petitioner does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year period remains I.T.A