MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

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

section 34/147." In the same order the Hon'ble court has further held that it not furnish a reasonable ground for the Income tax Officer to believe that on account of the failure - indeed not a mere failure but a positive design to mislead of the assessee to disclose all material facts, fully and truly, necessary for the assessment

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

section 34/147." In the same order the Hon'ble court has further held that it not furnish a reasonable ground for the Income tax Officer to believe that on account of the failure - indeed not a mere failure but a positive design to mislead of the assessee to disclose all material facts, fully and truly, necessary for the assessment

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

section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) is inapplicable. 5. It is however submitted that the assessing officer has re-opened all the assessment u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued on the last date i.e. 31.03.2017 on the basis of certain information received from the DCIT, CC-09, New Delhi. In the reasons to believe, it was alleged that

ANOOP THATAI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

SUDHIR DHINGRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. ANOOP THATAI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

SUDHIR DHINGRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, GURGAON vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicialmember & Sh.B. R. R. Kumar

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was right in following Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 173 when the Hon’ble HC itself admits in para 37(iv) that “Although Section 153A does

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

reassessment made u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147\nof the Act is valid in the eyes of law in the absence of\nservice of notice u/s 148 by post and in the absence of\nproper and valid service of notice by affixture as\ncontemplated under section 282 of I.T. Act and Order V\nRule 17 and 20 of CPC.\n\n2. Whether