R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

272A(1 )(d)/ 271(1 )(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 12. The writ petition thereafter came to be instituted on 27 March 2023. On the first date of consideration and more particularly on 28 March 2023, an interim order was passed to the effect that while the AO would have liberty to continue the reassessment proceedings, any Digitally

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

147 was initiated vide issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 10.01.2017 by ACIT (E), Circle 1(1), Delhi by recording reasons to believe. The copy of reasons recorded have been placed in the paper book on pages 104 to 127 which for the sake of ready reference is incorporated hereunder:- “1. Details of information received through Tax Evasion Petition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

D G M E N T RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. The instant appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, impugns order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”], whereby, the ITAT ruled in favour of the respondent/Assessee and dismissed the appeal preferred against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CITA”]. The appeal has been

A K ENTERPRISES ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(5), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20

147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B on 02-02-2024 further becomes non-est, because of the non-receipt /service of any notice u/s 148 along with the other statutory notices claimed to be issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 prior to pass the ex-parte assessment order on 02- 02-2024, because of sending the same

M/S. BONY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, A.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27th March, 2014 passed by the CIT(A), Faridabad relating to assessment year 2006-07. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the JCIT(TDS) on a perusal of information available on system found that the assessee had filed

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention