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

Appeal are allowed

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

section 68 of the Act as that tantamount to double taxation. It is submitted that double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

section 147 is \"income escaping assessment\"\nand that of section 148 \"issue of notice where income escaped\nassessment\". Section 148 is supplementary and complimentary to section\n147. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of\nnotice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates\nservice of notice

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

166 taxmann.com 61\n(Delhi) has that AO cannot be permitted to improve the reasons\nrecorded which form basis for initiating action under section 148A. The\n\nrelevant observations of the hon'ble high court as contained in para 29\nto 32 of the order reads as under:\n\n29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

68 is that there has to credit of amount in the books of the assessee and such credit shall be sum of money emphasis is placed on the physiology used in the section wherein the phrase any sum is found credited has been used and the legislation has not used the word deposited. In other word the balancing effect

M/S. PSYCHOTROPICS LEASING & FINANCE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

166-175 are the submission before Ld. CIT(A) inter-alia submitting that share capital has been accepted but share premium received from those very shareholders through banking channel were not accepted which is not possible, more so when there were overwhelming evidences from these shareholder-companies confirming the share premium and that all the shareholder-companies were assessed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 DELHI vs. KRBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

68 of the Act made via the Finance Act, 2022. 24. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jolly has relied upon the judgments in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Delhi), CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) and CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., ITA No. 972/2009 decided on 23.12.2011. 25. Having

ITO WARD - 7(2), NEW DELHI vs. DKS SALES (P) LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. M/S. Dks Sales (P) Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), A-24, A-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaecd4730F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

section 68 of the Act. We, therefore, confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) who deleted the addition made on account of such credits. In the result the Departmental appeal stands rejected. 9.6 It was also held in ITAT, Delhi order in case of Smt. Suhda Loyalka Vs ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi ITA No 399/Del/2017 (Placed

FINE GUJRANWALA JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 68 was justified.” 2. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs ITO in [2020] 118 taxmann.com 166

SANJAY DALMIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

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

Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not come in the way of a suit or action being instituted or presented by the executor or the legatee claiming under a Will. 161. Ergo, a partition suit is not barred until a probate has been granted by a court and thus, the validity of a Will

M/S GRAND SLAM PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the said unexplained credit of Rs.15,00,000/-under the head ‘income from other sources’. 2.1 Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings as 4 well as the addition on merit. The Ld. CIT-A upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

166 (170,171) (DB) (sic). As commonly understood, it would mean which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provision of the section. The test to be applied is that of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Sufficiency of reason would he in the test whether the same could have been avoided by exercise of due care

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

166 (170,171) (DB) (sic). As commonly understood, it would mean which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provision of the section. The test to be applied is that of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Sufficiency of reason would he in the test whether the same could have been avoided by exercise of due care

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

166 (170,171) (DB) (sic). As commonly understood, it would mean which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provision of the section. The test to be applied is that of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Sufficiency of reason would he in the test whether the same could have been avoided by exercise of due care

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

166 (170,171) (DB) (sic). As commonly understood, it would mean which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provision of the section. The test to be applied is that of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Sufficiency of reason would he in the test whether the same could have been avoided by exercise of due care

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

166 (170,171) (DB) (sic). As commonly understood, it would mean which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provision of the section. The test to be applied is that of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Sufficiency of reason would he in the test whether the same could have been avoided by exercise of due care

ACHLA MALHOTRA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

166 (170,171) (DB) (sic). As commonly understood, it would mean which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provision of the section. The test to be applied is that of a reasonable man in normal circumstances. Sufficiency of reason would he in the test whether the same could have been avoided by exercise of due care

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

166 ITD 616, etc. 26. Per Contra, the ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 27. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. Section 41(1) of the Act postulates addition in the hands of the assessee qua liabilities which have ceased to exist. In the instant case

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

166 ITD 616, etc. 26. Per Contra, the ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 27. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. Section 41(1) of the Act postulates addition in the hands of the assessee qua liabilities which have ceased to exist. In the instant case