(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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PP ENGINEERING WORK

The appeal is disposed of

1 of 10 $~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 31st July, 2014 + Income Tax Appeal 179/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus PP ENGINEERING WORK ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mr. Ved Jain and Mr. Pranjal Shrivastava, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del), (Delhi High Court); CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT v. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.]‖ 11. It becomes pertinent to note that the issue of whether the AO could ignore

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.]‖ 11. It becomes pertinent to note that the issue of whether the AO could ignore

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.]‖ 11. It becomes pertinent to note that the issue of whether the AO could ignore

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

1-23 of paper book) 7 (II) EVIDENCES OF CASH WITHDRAWALS i) Copy of bank statement of following banks: a) Oriental bank of commerce A/c No. 50965015001957 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 (Page 39-60 of paper book) b) Union Bank of India A/e No 532701010034398 for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 (Page 61-76 of paper

M/S. IDEAL HITECH ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

150 members were lying vacant due to the usage restriction imposed on the said land and accordingly it was difficult to let out such land in the first place and no addition can be made on account of 23(1)(c) That the comparison could not be made with nearby properties as the same were fully furnished properties whereas

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

150 taxmann.com 108 (SC) and PCIT v Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 68 of the Act, therefore, to the tune of Rs.2,33,18,873/- in the hands of the assessee on the ground that assessee has routed its own unaccounted money in the garb of unsecured loan in the name of related parties by way of journal entry. This includes the unsecured loan taken from one Pinki Goel