VIKAS CHOWDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act and issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee on 31.03.2018. The AO noted that there is no compliance to the statutory notices. The AO further noted that during the assessment year under appeal assessee had made transactions in commodity with Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX) amounting to Rs. 107,89,34,900/-. Further

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in the eye of law, as there is no live nexus between the information and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of the AO despite

SAINIK FILLING STATION,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 4(1), GURGAON

Appeal are allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment order and more particularly when return was filed by assessee in response to notice u/s 148. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance of Rs. 89,542/- made by Ld. AO on account of 'HPCL interest on late payment' and 'interest on late payment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VINITA CHAURASIA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Vinita Chaurasia Central Circle-16, Room No. 344, 575, Double Storey Flats, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan New Rajendra Nagar Extn. New Delhi New Delhi Aafpc4589D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No. 38/Del/2016 ( A.Y 2007-08)

147 and as such the reopening is illegal and without jurisdiction.” 3 ITA No. 5957/Del/2015& C.O No. 38/Del/2016 3. The original return was filed on 31/7/2007 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring total income of Rs.4,70,97,930/- by the assessee. There was search and seizure operation within the meaning of Section 132 on 29/4/2008

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

147.\n\n8.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case, the action taken\nagainst the assessee company again and again under different\nproceedings under the Act on the basis of audit objection, which\nwere completed after due verification of said investor companies, so\nagain initiation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 on the basis of\nsame audit objection

AMIT PACHAURI,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 1, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 6488/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Amit Pachauri, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Nand Kumar, Kothiyat, Ward-1, Court Road, Near Church, Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajzpp8114A Assessee By : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prashar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Ghaziabad Dated 31.08.2018. 2. Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal Of The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A), Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Case Of The Apex Court In Gkn Drive Shaft India Ltd. Did Not Apply To The Facts In The Present Case Thereby Over-Looking The Crucial Aspect That The Assessee Had, In Fact, Moved Two Applications Dated 13.01.2010 & 30.06.2010 For Conveying Reasons, So Much So, Impugned Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act Dated 03.12.2009 In Blanket Format Also Lacked Vital Information Of Income Alleged To Have Been Escaped Assessment.” 3. The Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That This Is The Third Round Of Appeal Before The Tribunal. He Submitted That In The First Round Of Appeal, The Tribunal In Ita No. 6491/Del/2014, Order Dated 08.09.2015 Restored The Matter Back To The File Of 2 Amit Pachauri The Cit(A) Observing That The Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated All The Issues Raised Before Him & Therefore, Directed The Cit(A) To Pass De-Novo Order In Accordance With Law On Merits After Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To Both The Parties.

747 where it was held that Sections 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not meant for reopening an already concluded assessment by first issuing notice and then proceeding to investigate to find out if there was any lacuna in the accounts. If such further investigation, by reopening concluded assessment, is permitted, it would give rise to fishing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD

747/-. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed expenditure of Rs.1,15,000/- under Section 14A of the Act, calculation for which were submitted before the Assessing Officer by way of letter dated 2nd November, 2010. The Assessing Officer considered the reply and noted that the voluntary disallowance did not fulfil the requirements of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ADIDAS SOURCING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act. 4. At the outset, we may like to mention that neither anyone appeared on behalf the assessee despite notifying the date of hearing nor an application for adjournment was filed. The appeal being old and non-compliance by the assessee, it was felt that the assessee is not interested in pursuing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ADIDAS SOURCING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act. 4. At the outset, we may like to mention that neither anyone appeared on behalf the assessee despite notifying the date of hearing nor an application for adjournment was filed. The appeal being old and non-compliance by the assessee, it was felt that the assessee is not interested in pursuing

DIRECTOR OF INCO:ME-TAX-I vs. JC BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

747,491,657 Average Value 11,878,426,619 Total disallowance Total Expenses Less: Interest Expenses to earn Interest Income Less: Expenses for Consultancy & others Less: Expenses which is disallowed as per Provisions of PGBP Donation 1,300,000 Provision for diminution in the value of Investment 43,841,819 Provision for Leave Encashment 745 Loss on Sale of Investment

RADHU DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 2866/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Radhu Developers (P.) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 811, Pearls Height-1, Netaji Ward-20(4), Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcr0879A Assessee By : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated 05.02.2019. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Various Grounds Of Appeal Which Includes Grounds On Legal Issues As Well As Grounds On Merits. Ground Nos. 1 To 4 Are On Legal Issue Whereas Ground Nos. 5 To 9 Are On The Merits Of The Case.

reassessment proceedings without application of mind on the material provided by the investigation wing of the department. In this respect, 2 Radhu Developers (P.) Ltd. the ld. AR took us to paper book page 31 where from for recording reasons for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was placed and our specific attention was invited to column 8 where

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

reassessment being based merely on change of opinion, was bad in law and void ab- initio. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making an addition of Rs.19,40,928/ while computing 'book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961('the Act'), on account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

747,307\nAmount in INR\n6,84,13,567\n7,75,47,151\n10,03,51,650\n19,15,69,717\n31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is\nthat BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office\nfrom India itself and there is no business activity in the company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

747,307\nAmount in INR\n6,84,13,567\n7,75,47,151\n10,03,51,650\n19,15,69,717\n31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is\nthat BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office\nfrom India itself and there is no business activity in the company

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI

747,307\nAmount in INR\n6,84,13,567\n7,75,47,151\n10,03,51,650\n19,15,69,717\n31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is\nthat BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office\nfrom India itself and there is no business activity in the company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

747,307 USD Amount in INR 6,84,13,567 7,75,47,151 10,03,51,650 19,15,69,717 31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is that BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office from India itself and there is no business activity in the company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

747,307 USD Amount in INR 6,84,13,567 7,75,47,151 10,03,51,650 19,15,69,717 31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is that BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office from India itself and there is no business activity in the company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

747,307 USD Amount in INR 6,84,13,567 7,75,47,151 10,03,51,650 19,15,69,717 31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is that BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office from India itself and there is no business activity in the company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

747,307 USD Amount in INR 6,84,13,567 7,75,47,151 10,03,51,650 19,15,69,717 31. The entire case of the assessing officer for making the addition is that BKKI is owned and controlled by Shri Bhushan Kumar and his office from India itself and there is no business activity in the company