BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. were merely based on the suspicion and without any tangible material so as to suggest any escapement of income. Hence the reassessment 2 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3. That the assessment order is void and invalid in law as there cloud

PARVEJ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Parvej, Vs. Ito, C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Ward-2(1), Associates, Ghaziabad. 77-Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Dkkpp4804A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Km. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Order

147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 148/144, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard

MOHD. YAMEEN MUNNA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

54B of Rs.20,24,070/- and on the balance of Rs.22,79,930/-, assessee is liable to pay tax of long term capital gains, which have not been disclosed. The A.O. considering the above, computed the long term capital gains of Rs.18,01,265/-. 2.1. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition on merit. However

SURAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 was determined at Rs. 969886/-. 6. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before the learned CIT – A assessee challenged by raising a new issue that the impugned land which was sold by the assessee

SULTAN SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 was determined at Rs. 969886/-. 6. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before the learned CIT – A assessee challenged by raising a new issue that the impugned land which was sold by the assessee

HARIOM,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following additional grounds of appeal:- “Permission is respectfully sought for raising

RAJ SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following additional grounds of appeal:- “Permission is respectfully sought for raising

VIJAY PAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3033/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Vijay Pal, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-4(4), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Anvpp7279G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3031/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito, Raj Singh, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-3(3), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Bjdps1075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3032/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Vs. Ito Hariom, S/O Late Sh. Manohar Lal, Ward-2(1), Village & P.O. Nakhrola, Gurgaon. Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon. Pan No.Afuph1298A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous and unlawful must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following additional grounds of appeal:- “Permission is respectfully sought for raising

JITENDRA BHARTI,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MEERUT

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

54B of I.T.Act, 1961. 4. That the addition made by the A.O. for Rs. 48,73,000/- on account of investment in purchase of agriculture land without any basis. 5. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceeding.” 2. Briefly stated that facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand

SATYA PAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal: "1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any authority of law and in derogation of the jurisdiction as originally vested with

RATI RAM,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal: "1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any authority of law and in derogation of the jurisdiction as originally vested with

SATYABIR SINGH YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

54B & 54F of the I.T. Act 1961; 8. Charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. At the time of hearing permission was sought to raise the following as additional grounds of appeal: "1. in assuming jurisdiction over the case without any authority of law and in derogation of the jurisdiction as originally vested with

KARTAR SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

54B and 54F and also ignoring the fact that income escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 here means long term capital gain (not the full value of sale consideration) computed under sections 45 to 55 of the L.T. Act. Thus the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment u/s 147 without computing long term capital gain under

SH. RAMESH KUMAR L/H LATE SH. KUNWAR SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO, HARYANA

The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaia N D Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Ramesh Kumar L/H Late Sh. Ito Kunwar Singh Ward- 2 S/O. Mohan Lal Vill. Namaul Padiawas, Haryana Vs. P.O. Gurdaspur, Majra, Tehsil & Distt. Rewari Haryana

reassessment proceedings under sections 147. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that in absence of necessary sanction the notice was bad in law and ought to have quashed the notice issued by the Ld. AO. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering that the requirement of prior sanction before initiating notice under section 147 in view

ITO, HISAR vs. SH. SANT SINGH PROP., HISAR

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

reassessment. Assessee filed objection to reopening which were dismissed by order dated 09.12.2014. The assessee gave a detailed explanation of the transaction and the exemption however, Ld. AO being unsatisfied made the addition and passed order u/s 143C/ 147 of the Act on 24.02.2015 which was challenged by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) where apart from other grounds assessee

AMAR SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 54B and 54F, amount not utilized for the purchase of new asset up to the date of filing of return u/s 139, should 4 Amar Singh have been, deposited in bank in capital gain account scheme. The assessee has not filed return of income within the time prescribed u/s 139 of IT Act. Return was filed only

HOSHIYARI,REWARI vs. ITO , WARD-1, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Hoshiyari C/O Anu Jain & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, 272 R, First Floor, Ward-1, Near Palika Complex, Model Rewari. Town, Rewari (Haryana) Pin: 123 401 Pan :Bmdpd2079Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54B and 54F, amount not utilized for the purchase of new asset up to the date of filing of return u/s 139, should have been, deposited in bank in capital gain account scheme. The assessee has not filed return of income within the time prescribed u/s 139 of IT Act. Return was filed only on 11.07.2016 in response

POORAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

reassessment order framed by Ld. A.O on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued during the course of assessment proceeding and thus assessment order is bad in law.” ITA No. 4289/Del/2012 was filed by the assessee in respect of the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c). 3. The assessee has made