ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

reassessment u/s 147 of the IT Act. He argued that if the CIT(A) tries to examine those issues which have not been considered by the Assessing Officer, provisions of section 147 as well as section 263 will become redundant and the conditions for their operations will be nullified. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision

HURON BUILDERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed on this preliminary

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. (PB page 55 to 66) (vii) 13.12.2017 Petition under section 144A filed before Jt.CIT/Addl.CIT for seeking direction on validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 for the assessment year 2013-14 (year under appeal). (PB page 67 to 70) 6 I.T.A. No.6251/DEL/2019 (viii) 19.12.2017 Rejoinder submitted on this date, before

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

JASRATI EDUCATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

147 dated 27.09.2021 after making a disallowance of Rs. 39,80,47,655/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) rwr 11U & 11UA(2) of the Act, on account of excess consideration received towards share premium and further Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained payment made to M/s. Bhagawati Trading Co (Prop. Sanjiv Yadav) and income was assessed

JASRATI EDUCATION SOLUTIONS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

147 dated 27.09.2021 after making a disallowance of Rs. 39,80,47,655/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) rwr 11U & 11UA(2) of the Act, on account of excess consideration received towards share premium and further Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained payment made to M/s. Bhagawati Trading Co (Prop. Sanjiv Yadav) and income was assessed

KRISHAN DEV VERMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHIWANI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

147 dated 27.09.2021 after making a disallowance of Rs. 39,80,47,655/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) rwr 11U & 11UA(2) of the Act, on account of excess consideration received towards share premium and further Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of unexplained payment made to M/s. Bhagawati Trading Co (Prop. Sanjiv Yadav) and income was assessed

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

147, satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income to the extent of Rs.39,27,750/- being rotation of money through transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. which were alleged as accommodation entry, however, no addition whatsoever was made on this account in the reassessment order passed and the consideration received from the sale of shares was added as unexplained

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

147, satisfaction was recorded of escapement of income to the extent of Rs.39,27,750/- being rotation of money through transactions with M/s Concise Exim Pvt. Ltd. which were alleged as accommodation entry, however, no addition whatsoever was made on this account in the reassessment order passed and the consideration received from the sale of shares was added as unexplained

M/S. SATYASHIV SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT= 8, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Satyashiv Shares & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Securities Pvt. Ltd, Tax, M-11, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aancs5482Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order was passed without making proper verification and inquiries, and is therefore, deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence can be revised u/s 263 of the income tax act as per the amended provisions of section 263 with effect from 1/6/2015. Accordingly he held that the order passed

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 151. He also strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure vs. ACIT in W.P.(c) 1357/2016 dated 25.9.2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that furnishing of incomplete reasons without providing the ground on which satisfaction by the authorities concerned u/s 151 was reached to sanction

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX VENTURES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Acit, Vs Max Venture Investment Holdings Circle-16(2), Pvt.Ltd., Max House, New Delhi. 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacd0213H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Respondent By S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv., Rohan Khare, Adv. & Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022

147 r/w 143(3) of the Act, whereby the share application money was added in the income of the Respondent being unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Vide the said order, the identity and creditworthiness of Mr. Analjit Singh was accepted, however, the addition was made on the premise that the “genuineness” of the transaction