ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ELATIVE BUILDING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

149 (SC). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 4 of the order reads as under:- “4. The language used in Section 80G(2)(a) is clear and unambiguous. On a plain reading of the section, it is apparent that an assessee is entitled to claim deduction from his income on the amount

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

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 the books of account or documents or assets seized

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

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 the books of account or documents or assets seized

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

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 the books of account or documents or assets seized

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

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 the books of account or documents or assets seized

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

149 (SC). The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 4 of the order reads as under:- “4. The language used in Section 80G(2)(a) is clear and unambiguous. On a plain reading of the section, it is apparent that an assessee is entitled to claim deduction from his income on the amount

ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DLEHI vs. ZEXUS AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

section 68 cannot be applied to the instant case as there is no actual receipt of money by the assessee whether by cash or cheque during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

149 of the Act. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal, the Tribunal quashed the notice and consequently, the reassessment proceedings.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144B", "68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. DOUBLE PLUS SOFTWARE P.LTD, NEDW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act.\nSimilarly, for the assessment year 2012-13 there was another information from the\ninvestigation wing regarding the unaccounted income and this amount was also added\nto the total income. The CIT(A) perused the assessment orders for those two years\nwhich showed that the assessing officer has not made any adverse comment

PARVEEN,VPO KHANDA KHERI vs. ITO, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68 of the Act.\nSimilarly, for the assessment year 2012-13 there was another information from the\ninvestigation wing regarding the unaccounted income and this amount was also added\nto the total income. The CIT(A) perused the assessment orders for those two years\nwhich showed that the assessing officer has not made any adverse comment

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

MITTAL HOMES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

68", "Section 143(1)(a)", "Section 148", "Section 148A(b)", "Section 149", "Section 151"], "issues

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

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 the books of account or documents or assets seized

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

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 the books of account or documents or assets seized