DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

282/-. Claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act was made at Rs.97,37,28,085/ which was restricted to total income, hence the Nil taxable income. The provisions of section 115JB were applied on the declared book profits of Rs.67,08,71,105/ and the assessee company paid Minimum alternate tax of Rs.5,16,76,089/ . 3. Assessment

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma

SUSHIL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 57(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 143(3). The Hon’ble court thereafter relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S P Chaliha 79 ITR 603. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at that time rendered its judgment on the basis of than prevailing provisions of section 147 which were much different from the present previsions. The Court held

PARMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

PARAMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

PARMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

PARAMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

147. The procedure for Section 153A is different and in such cases, once return is filed, the AO is duty bound to complete the assessment. Thus, it is not an issue of jurisdiction which arises ITA Nos.5330, 5332 to 5335, 4575 & 4576/Del/2016 & 64 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra consequent to issue of notice

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

282 (Del), the position was clarified by the Court and it was held: “It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68 of the I.T. Act only sets up a presumption against the Assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of accounts of the Assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption

INDIAN CLOTHING LEAGUE(P) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-26(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Indian Clothing League (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-26(2), Advocate, B-1A/22H, New Delhi. Sector-51, Noida. Pan: Aaccv3439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 Order

147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. CHETAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

147(b) of the Act. The re-assessment proceedings 5. On 28th March 2008, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) Circle 3, Chandigarh issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The notice was addressed to the Assessee but the address indicated therein was “C/o Kiran Cinema, Sector-22, Chandigarh.” It appears that the said notice was served

M/S RAJIT SYNTEX PVT. LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahuay: 2004-05 Rajit Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 430, Sector 28, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. Noida, Up-201 301 (Pan: Aaccr0963N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, Sr.Dr

282 CTR 435 (Del). He submitted that in view of the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court’s judgment, the entire proceedings ought to be quashed. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that a mere technical default, if at all, cannot vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings and submitted that on merits, the Department has a very strong

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 147/148 are hereby quashed.” (2.3) The present appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT”, for short) has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid impugned order dated 18.06.2012 of Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, a Paper Book and a case laws compilation was filed from assessee’s side, containing following particulars; “1. Written

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

282 CTR 321/380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 260/394 ITR 569 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

282 CTR 321/380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 260/394 ITR 569 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

282 CTR 321/380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 260/394 ITR 569 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since