M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961] 11. It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the Section (Section

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

274 ITR 26. b) The Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of IDS Software Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) : [2009] 122 TTJ 410 on similar facts held that the managing director nominated by the US Corporation was an employee of the Indian company and, therefore, reimbursement of his salary by the Indian company

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

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

274 ITR 26. b) The Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of IDS Software Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) : [2009] 122 TTJ 410 on similar facts held that the managing director nominated by the US Corporation was an employee of the Indian company and, therefore, reimbursement of his salary by the Indian company

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

274 ITR 26. b) The Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of IDS Software Solutions (India) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (International Taxation) : [2009] 122 TTJ 410 on similar facts held that the managing director nominated by the US Corporation was an employee of the Indian company and, therefore, reimbursement of his salary by the Indian company

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

274(2)(a) of IT Act. Therefore, such reassessment order passed after taking approval cannot be subject to revisionary proceedings. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon’ble appellate authority.” 2 SUNITA SAINI 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that

SUNIL KUMAR NAGAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. 19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the AO wrongly initiated the proceedings u/s

SUNIL KUMAR NAGAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.2118/Del/2019 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess the total income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. 19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the AO wrongly initiated the proceedings u/s

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

274/- (Rs.12,01,29,653 – 11,48,38,379) and added the same back to the 6 ITA No.5126/Del./11 & 1023/Del./2013 total income of the assessee vide reassessment order dated 24.12.2010 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act. 2.3 The assessee challenged the reassessment order in appeal before the learned CIT(A) both on validity of reassessment proceedings

M/S NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

274/- (Rs.12,01,29,653 – 11,48,38,379) and added the same back to the 6 ITA No.5126/Del./11 & 1023/Del./2013 total income of the assessee vide reassessment order dated 24.12.2010 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act. 2.3 The assessee challenged the reassessment order in appeal before the learned CIT(A) both on validity of reassessment proceedings

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

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2352 & 2353/Del/2024 2 Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 2. To begin with, we shall first take up ITA No.2352/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.2352/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 3. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has inter alia challenged the assumption of jurisdiction

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2352 & 2353/Del/2024 2 Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 2. To begin with, we shall first take up ITA No.2352/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.2352/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 3. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has inter alia challenged the assumption of jurisdiction

KAMAL KISHOREE AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 6628/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal, Vs Acit, A-57, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Circle-34(1), New Delhi-110052 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ackpa3670L Assessee By : Sh. Pancham Sethi, Fca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-12, New Delhi Dated 13.07.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 250(6) By The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer To Initiate Reopening & Reassessment Of The Case U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 5,96,177/- Made By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By Treating Certain Share Transactions As Bogus. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Recognizing The Fact That The Client Code Modification (Ccm) Was Done To Rectify The Genuine Errors Held At The End Of Broker For Which The Assessee Was Not Responsible. 2 Kamal Kishoree Aggarwal 5. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ld. Ao Even When The Ld. Ao Failed To Provide The Details Of The Transactions Where Client Code Was Modified. 6. Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Read With Section 274 Of The It Act, 1961. 7. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Delete Or Add Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Of The Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Reopening Of Assessment Made U/S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law.

reassessment of the case u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,96,177/- made by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by treating certain share transactions as bogus. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not recognizing the fact that the Client Code Modification

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

274 notice dated 17.06.2019 filed by the Petitioner before AO 27.06.2019 Annexure P-13 on pg. 206 of WP 28.06.2019 Annexure P- 13 on pg. 152 of WP 27.06.2019 Annexure P- 11 on pg. 330-347 28.06.2019 Annexure P-11 on pg. 234 of WP 28.06.2019 Annexure P-13 on pg. 300 of WP 12 Notice u/s

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

274 notice dated 17.06.2019 filed by the Petitioner before AO 27.06.2019 Annexure P-13 on pg. 206 of WP 28.06.2019 Annexure P- 13 on pg. 152 of WP 27.06.2019 Annexure P- 11 on pg. 330-347 28.06.2019 Annexure P-11 on pg. 234 of WP 28.06.2019 Annexure P-13 on pg. 300 of WP 12 Notice u/s

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

274 notice dated 17.06.2019 filed by the Petitioner before AO 27.06.2019 Annexure P-13 on pg. 206 of WP 28.06.2019 Annexure P- 13 on pg. 152 of WP 27.06.2019 Annexure P- 11 on pg. 330-347 28.06.2019 Annexure P-11 on pg. 234 of WP 28.06.2019 Annexure P-13 on pg. 300 of WP 12 Notice u/s