JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section u/s 54F(4)) has been made ignoring the fact that the entire amount remained in Bank account and payment to the contractor was made after withdrawing the amount from the bank account. In alternative the exemption should has been allowed up to the time for filing the return u/s 139(4). 3. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong

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

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

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

54F for two houses. The appellant craves for permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. Under the circumstances it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and / or any other relief as Hon'ble Tribunal may think fit. Justice is prayed,” 2. Later on, the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.S. CHAWLA & SONGS (HUF), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment proceedings, had also referred the property in question for valuation before the valuation officer. However, the Assessing Officer without disposing the objections filed by the assessee and without waiting for the valuation report of the DVO passed an order under Section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2013 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,15,34,135/-. The addition

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the income was bad in law, for proviso to section 147 of the Act was applicable in the present case, inasmuch as, the original assessment was made under 3 SatyamurtiRamasundar A.Y. 2012-13 Section 143(3) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment

DHARA SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

54F of the Act. IN this regard, Remand report was obtained by the Ld. CIT(A) and on consideration of rejoinder submission the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidences but upheld the action u/s 148 of the Act and also invocation of section 50C of the Act vide order dated 23.1.2018 by partly allowing the appeal of the assessee

SUKH DARSHAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD.43(2) , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

54F and made adjustments to the income declared by the assessee in his return of income. He proceeded to make the addition of Rs.40,96,805/- u/s 68 of the Act. Sukh Darshan Singh vs. ITO 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed following grounds of appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Kamal Kishore Vs. Dcit, Jaiswal, Central Circle, Dehradun 23/25, Pritam Road, Dehradun. Pan :Acdpk1166C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)

u/s 54F of the IT Act. The Appellant craves leave to reserve his right to add to, delete from, amend, alter or modify his “Grounds of Appeal” at any time before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the year under consideration

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

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

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

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

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

MANJULA SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhrimanjula Sethi Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant L-42A Lajpat Nagar-Ii Commissioner Of Income New Delhi- 110024 Tax/Ito,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatps7572E Appellant .. Respondent

54F of the Act, the assessee could not be granted the relief and hence proceeded against the assessee by reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148, therefore, was issued to the assessee dated 30.03.2021. The said reassessment proceeding was finalized upon making addition of the entire amount of Rs.5,18,39,518/- which

M/S GINNI GOLDLIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income-tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment ; under clause

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

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

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

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:

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 sections

PARTAP SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

147 of the Act to enquire the source of investment for purchase of immovable property of Rs. 80,00,000/-. Assessee had not filed the return for the year under consideration and subsequently in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act assessee filed the return. During the course of assessment proceedings it came up that assessee claimed

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

reassessment proceedings were started. In the questionnaire, the assessee was required to submit the following information: "A) AS Per Tax Evasion Petition filed in your case it has been alleged that you have incurred unaccounted expenditure to the tune oj Rs. 3 crores on such foreign travels. In this connection you are hereby asked to submit a detailed reply