PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

68,99,745 covered under section 115-BBC of the Act. 12. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.6,52,493, being the value of Tata Sumo (vehicle) received as donation by the appellant. 13. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

MANOJ KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

68 of the Act, when 3 ITA No. 1627/Del./2016 admittedly such amount was not found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income electronically on 15/10/2010, declaring total income of ₹ 18,32,891/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section

KAMLESH RANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

VISHAL KASHYAP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

PREM RATTAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

NASEEM ZAFAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

NAZIA ZAFAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

NASEEM SAAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

ANJUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

DAYA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

AMITABH BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

SURENDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the act or to annul the assessment order itself. On careful perusal of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is noted that such direction were given by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of writ petition filed by the assessee before the Hon‘ble High Court and therefore Supreme Court held that

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under all other powers enabling me in this behalf, 1, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh hereby transfer the following case(s), particulars of which are mentioned hereunder in Columns (2) and (3) from the Assessing Officer mentioned in Column (4) therein, to the of the Assessing Officer mentioned in Column

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the PCIT-4, Delhi, based merely on a letter from ITO (Hqrs)-1 0/o CCIT(Central) - 2 and without the agreement or concurrence of an officer of equal rank, is invalid in law, and consequently, all assessment proceedings made thereafter by Ld DCIT, CC -28 are also invalid. Non-compliance with

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the PCIT-4, Delhi, based merely on a letter from ITO (Hqrs)-1 0/o CCIT(Central) - 2 and without the agreement or concurrence of an officer of equal rank, is invalid in law, and consequently, all assessment proceedings made thereafter by Ld DCIT, CC -28 are also invalid. Non-compliance with

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the PCIT-4, Delhi, based merely on a letter from ITO (Hqrs)-1 0/o CCIT(Central) - 2 and without the agreement or concurrence of an officer of equal rank, is invalid in law, and consequently, all assessment proceedings made thereafter by Ld DCIT, CC -28 are also invalid. Non-compliance with

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the PCIT-4, Delhi, based merely on a letter from ITO (Hqrs)-1 0/o CCIT(Central) - 2 and without the agreement or concurrence of an officer of equal rank, is invalid in law, and consequently, all assessment proceedings made thereafter by Ld DCIT, CC -28 are also invalid. Non-compliance with