OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2013-14. The said disclosure was increased to Rs. 7,48,04,200/- during the course of settlement proceedings. On 26.11.2014, the Hon’ble ITSC passed

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2013-14. The said disclosure was increased to Rs. 7,48,04,200/- during the course of settlement proceedings. On 26.11.2014, the Hon’ble ITSC passed

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

245C(1) of the Act before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (“ITSC”). The assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1,93,04,200/- for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2013-14. The said disclosure was increased to Rs. 7,48,04,200/- during the course of settlement proceedings. On 26.11.2014, the Hon’ble ITSC passed

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- 24 Provident Inv & Industries Private Limited V ITO ITA No 1003/Del/2015 A Y 2008-09 section (1) of section

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing on the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- section (1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall

CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA

245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing on the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- section (1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, shall

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

68(del) - Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. vs DCIT (2016) 380 ITR 412 (del) - Rasalika Trading and Investemnt Co. Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT ( 2014) 365 ITR 447(Del) (ii) that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while adopting rate of US dollar for computing interest liability and therefore, reasons need to be rejected on the ground

SURYA AGROTECH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

68,84,970 1,26,35,04,456 2,33,80,514 2015-16 7,18,85,42,615 1,36,58,23,097 1,36,45,98,055 12,25,042 Total 49,12,73,399 From the above it is seen that the additional income mentioned above covers the investment made by the applicant company in the shares

SURYA AGROTECH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

68,84,970 1,26,35,04,456 2,33,80,514 2015-16 7,18,85,42,615 1,36,58,23,097 1,36,45,98,055 12,25,042 Total 49,12,73,399 From the above it is seen that the additional income mentioned above covers the investment made by the applicant company in the shares

SURYA PROCESSED FOOD PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

68,84,970 1,26,35,04,456 2,33,80,514 2015-16 7,18,85,42,615 1,36,58,23,097 1,36,45,98,055 12,25,042 Total 49,12,73,399 From the above it is seen that the additional income mentioned above covers the investment made by the applicant company in the shares

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, authority was conferred upon the Income Tax Officer to assess a person as an agent of a foreign party under Section 43 within two years from the end of the year of assessment. But authority of the Income Tax Officer under the Act before it was amended by the Finance

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. SANTOSH TRUST, NEW DELHI

68 or\n69 or 69A will not be applicable. In order to save itself from taxation,\nthe trust may apply 85% of such contributions to charitable purposes.\nIII.\nFurther, Section 68/69/69A of the Act has no application to the facts of the\ncase because the assessee had in fact disclosed the receipts of the\ntrust in the form

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. R B FARMS AND ESTATES PVT. LTD.

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 250 days in refiling the above captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 129/2024 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], inter alia, impugning an order dated Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

68,36,793.0 55,95,50,573.00 13,21,11,994.00 addition on 0 0 account of cash received in OMASUM DELHI Account. 4. Addition on 1,29,77,985.00 8,46,909.00 11,13,865.00 1,65,70,800.00 5,62,05,556.00 account of outstanding sundry creditors. 5. Addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

68,36,793.0 55,95,50,573.00 13,21,11,994.00 addition on 0 0 account of cash received in OMASUM DELHI Account. 4. Addition on 1,29,77,985.00 8,46,909.00 11,13,865.00 1,65,70,800.00 5,62,05,556.00 account of outstanding sundry creditors. 5. Addition

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

68,36,793.0 55,95,50,573.00 13,21,11,994.00 addition on 0 0 account of cash received in OMASUM DELHI Account. 4. Addition on 1,29,77,985.00 8,46,909.00 11,13,865.00 1,65,70,800.00 5,62,05,556.00 account of outstanding sundry creditors. 5. Addition

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LIPI FINSTOCK LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Settlement Commission has not admitted the application of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee does not qualify as a “related” person to the “specified person”. The A.O. also made addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of additional income reflected in its settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement

DCIT CIRCLE-I(LTU), NEW DELHI vs. DALMIA BHARAT SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 153C as it stood in 2014 provides as under :- Assessment of income of any other person.2 153C.3[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 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

DCIT CIRCLE-I(LTU), NEW DELHI vs. DALMIA BHARAT SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly we dispose of the matters for AY 2007-08 to 2011-12 for the same reasons as under :- i. Thus, For AY 2007-08, Ground no 1 & 2 of the appeal of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 153C as it stood in 2014 provides as under :- Assessment of income of any other person.2 153C.3[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 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