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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, without affording adequate opportunity. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dated 19-05-23, as proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the Act is without there being any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 Taxmann.com 229 for the same year. He thus, submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 6. The ld DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the ld AO had time limit available of upto 7 years from the end of the Financial Year and therefore, this order

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

149(1)(b) in the absence of any income escaped assessment represented in the form of 'asset'. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in holding that license fees received by the Appellant from resident and non-residents with respect to live content

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2010, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 04.10.2013 has dismissed the appeal of the asseseee. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel of the assessee

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 6. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2010, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 04.10.2013 has dismissed the appeal of the asseseee. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel of the assessee

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). It is also submitted that without first determining what was seized/its nature if at all and how was it incriminating to the assessee, the impugned additions have been made on surmises. 30. The DRP also admitted in para (g) page 6 of its directive order the contention of the appellant that a search operation conducted

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

68 of the Act on account of share application money received during the year Rs. 8,53,47,000/- c. Unexplained investment as a share application money in M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Rs. 3,95,38,700/- on protective basis. d. Unexplained expenditure on account of brokerage @ 0.5% of 37,63,01,300i.e, Rs. 18,81,506/-. 10. Aggrieved

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

68 of the Act on account of share application money received during the year Rs. 8,53,47,000/- c. Unexplained investment as a share application money in M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Rs. 3,95,38,700/- on protective basis. d. Unexplained expenditure on account of brokerage @ 0.5% of 37,63,01,300i.e, Rs. 18,81,506/-. 10. Aggrieved

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

68 of the Act on account of share application money received during the year Rs. 8,53,47,000/- c. Unexplained investment as a share application money in M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. Rs. 3,95,38,700/- on protective basis. d. Unexplained expenditure on account of brokerage @ 0.5% of 37,63,01,300i.e, Rs. 18,81,506/-. 10. Aggrieved

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his Order dated 27.12.2010 passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2010, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 30.1.2014 has dismissed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his Order dated 27.12.2010 passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2010, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 30.1.2014 has dismissed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his Order dated 27.12.2010 passed u/s. 153C r.w.s. Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 8. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 27.12.2010, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned Order dated 30.1.2014 has dismissed the appeal of the asseseee. 9. Aggrieved with the order