SARAVJIT BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-11(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the IT Act as unexplained cash deposit. 4. So far as the revised return is concerned, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has maintained two bank accounts one with State Bank of Hyderabad where his salary was credited and other deposits were made. Besides that he has an account with ICICI Bank and Dmat account with ICICI

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

5) even though he made no deposits of un-invested capital gain in capital gains account scheme on or before the due date of filing ITR under section 139(1). 18. The decision in Dr. Dharmista Mehta’s case (supra) applies squarely to the facts of the assessee’s case before us. The Ld. AR has also placed reliance

M/S. HIMALYA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

139(1) was filed at NIL. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings the AO examined the claim of deduction u/s 80IC and raised several queries to the assessee to substantiate the substantial expansion in terms of section 80IC (8). In response, the assessee filed detailed submissions vide letter dated 29.10.2011 alongwith copies of details of addition

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

139(1) was filed at NIL. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings the AO examined the claim of deduction u/s 80IC and raised several queries to the assessee to substantiate the substantial expansion in terms of section 80IC (8). In response, the assessee filed detailed submissions vide letter dated 29.10.2011 alongwith copies of details of addition

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD., HIMACHAL PRADESH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

139(1) was filed at NIL. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings the AO examined the claim of deduction u/s 80IC and raised several queries to the assessee to substantiate the substantial expansion in terms of section 80IC (8). In response, the assessee filed detailed submissions vide letter dated 29.10.2011 alongwith copies of details of addition

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

68,856/- made to the overseas entity, since the assessee bonafidely believed that such certification fee was not liable to tax in India, as the same was not covered within the meaning of “ Fee for Technical Services” as provided u/s 9(1) (vii) of the Act and/or the overriding provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. The aforesaid issue stands

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

139 to provide that every such person mentioned above, shall, if the total income in respect of which person, is assessable without giving effect to the provisions of section 10, exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income of the previous year.” 49. Even if the Assessee’s view that

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34. Act to have over-riding effect - (1). Save as provided under sub-Section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34. Act to have over-riding effect - (1). Save as provided under sub-Section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI

5) for AY 2012-\n13, was rejected by AO on the ground that the claim was neither made\nin the original return filed u/s 139(1) nor in return filed in response to\nthe notice u/s 153A. The AO further held that the 153A proceedings\nare initiated only for the benefit of revenue. On appeal, CIT(A), vide\nconsolidated order

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,10,42,45,751/- as against the income declared of Rs. 1,07,56,68,480/- in the invalid return of income after making certain disallowances aggregating

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,10,42,45,751/- as against the income declared of Rs. 1,07,56,68,480/- in the invalid return of income after making certain disallowances aggregating

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

5) for AY 2012-\n13, was rejected by AO on the ground that the claim was neither made\nin the original return filed u/s 139(1) nor in return filed in response to\nthe notice u/s 153A. The AO further held that the 153A proceedings\nare initiated only for the benefit of revenue. On appeal, CIT(A), vide\nconsolidated order

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)

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) Act on 29.12.2014 declaring income of Rs 4,77,440/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 18.09.2015. The main issue taken up in assessment was exemption of long term capital gains arising from sale of shares of M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited

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)

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) Act on 29.12.2014 declaring income of Rs 4,77,440/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 18.09.2015. The main issue taken up in assessment was exemption of long term capital gains arising from sale of shares of M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited

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)

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) Act on 29.12.2014 declaring income of Rs 4,77,440/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 18.09.2015. The main issue taken up in assessment was exemption of long term capital gains arising from sale of shares of M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then