ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 154 of the Act. 65. The CIT DR also submitted that even if it is presumed that the matter could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act, then this benefit could be allowed as per the procedure laid out in the statute which involves time limit. The assessee sought to rectify the order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 154 of the Act. 65. The CIT DR also submitted that even if it is presumed that the matter could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act, then this benefit could be allowed as per the procedure laid out in the statute which involves time limit. The assessee sought to rectify the order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 154 of the Act. 65. The CIT DR also submitted that even if it is presumed that the matter could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act, then this benefit could be allowed as per the procedure laid out in the statute which involves time limit. The assessee sought to rectify the order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s

GUPTA CITI SHELTERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

154 ITR ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 41 of 58 • 244] has held that the question of identity fails into oblivion, if the transaction is through account payee cheques. The same view has been expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Matehr and Platt [168 ITR 493]. Moreover, no summons had been issued to bankers

GUPTA CITI SHELTERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 ITR ITA No.972 of 2009 Page 41 of 58 2011:DHC:12065-DB • 244] has held that the question of identity fails into oblivion, if the transaction is through account payee cheques. The same view has been expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Matehr and Platt [168 ITR 493]. Moreover, no summons

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 1434/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 1991-92 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs Dcit, Deputy General Manager (F&A)-Ctd, Circle-1, Corporate Tax Division, Room No. Dehradun-248001 244, Old Secretariat Building, Tel Bhawan, Dehradun-248003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1598A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.09.2020

section 244A(1)(b). 6. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who held that the interest on excess self-assessment tax is debatable referring to the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Engineers India Ltd. and hence it is outside the scope of rectification u/s 154. 7. Regarding the short refund of Rs.29,68

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the Act, if the computation filed is a valid return of income then the notice u/s 143(2) should have been issued as it was a mandatory requirement before passing order u/s 143(3) as held in many cases. Therefore the assessment is invalid and illegal. 4. Without prejudice to other grounds and subject to the rectification application

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaaddl. Cit Vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd. Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, Room No. 352, Lodhi Road, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,304/- was disallowed u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee had claimed deduction on account of provision for leave encashment relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. 292 ITR 4 70, wherein the Hon ’ble Court struck down the provisions of Section 438(f), holding the same

FISERV INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishifiserv India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Regus Elegance, Level-2, Jasola Circle-9(1), District Centre, Old Mathura New Delhi Road, Delhi Pan: Aaccr0787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act on 18 July 2017 wherein the double disallowances of stamp duty charges of ₹ 68 lakhs was deleted. Accordingly assessed income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 592,257,890/–. 4. On perusal of the assessment record, the AO observed that assessee company was allowed to adjust minimum alternate tax [MAT] credit

KANTA,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD-1, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2010-11 Smt. Kanta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanta Brick Kiln Co., Ward-1, Vpo Kayla Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana – 127021 (Pan: Ceppk1186J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 on 07.04.2021 for 15.04.2021. But no explanation was offered by the assessee despite being provided these opportunities. Thus, the AO passed the rectification order on 14.07.2021 with addition of Rs. 50,00.000/- u/s 68 of the Act being unexplained source of income.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all grounds related thereto

DELICATE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

section 68 applies on account of non genuineness of the transaction/creditworthiness of these paper companies. Even otherwise the cash receipts by Jain Brothers from BPTP group are nothing but income of BPTP group which have to be taxed. The most suitable answer is the first recipient of BPTP group in whose hand such receipt is taxable which was disclosed u/s

PAVITRA REALCON PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

section 68 applies on account of non genuineness of the transaction/creditworthiness of these paper companies. Even otherwise the cash receipts by Jain Brothers from BPTP group are nothing but income of BPTP group which have to be taxed. The most suitable answer is the first recipient of BPTP group in whose hand such receipt is taxable which was disclosed u/s

WEL INTERTRADE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. K. N. Charyita No:-7167/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D at the rate of thirty per cent; (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a)”. 12. A perusal of the above show that the amendment

BGM TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT,DELHI-1, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Bgm Telecommunications Pvt. Vs. Pcit, Ltd., Delhi-1, D-288/289, Wadhwa Complex New Delhi Gali No. 10, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aagcb2484E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Fca Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

rectification order completed in this case u/s 154 of the I. T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018-19 on 17.03.2023 is held to be erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the ambit of the provisions of section 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961. The order u/s 154/143(3) dated

JYOTI CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 6(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

section 250 within a short span after rectification u/s 154 indicates pre-determination and lack of fair consideration, vitiating the appellate process. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 27.03.2025, declaring total income of Rs. 5,95,355/-. Based on information available with the department, Ld. AO issued a notice

NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamblenikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Plot No. 71, Circle-3(1) Sectdor-32, Institutional Area, 2Nd Floor, Hsiidc Building, Gurgaon, Haryana Vaniyjaya Nikunj, Udyog Pin 122001 Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. Ankit Sahni, Adv Respondent By Sh. Mritunjoy Baranwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2020

68,50,65,162/- to Rs. 75,02,87,734/-. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13.11.2015, determining income as under: Particulars Amount (INR) Returned income under the normal provisions 12,35,25,748 of the Act Add: TP Adjustment pursuant to directions of 75,02,87,734 DRP Aggrieved by the assessment order

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

154 can be done suo mota either by Assessing Officer himself or by the assessee on application. In the instant case, all the documents and details related to the impugned transaction were on record. We need to understand if such a mistake can lead to holding the order erroneous for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 to invoke revisionary

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

154 can be done suo mota either by Assessing Officer himself or by the assessee on application. In the instant case, all the documents and details related to the impugned transaction were on record. We need to understand if such a mistake can lead to holding the order erroneous for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 to invoke revisionary