PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

68 of the Act, the AO had made an addition amounting to Rs. 25,07,50,000/, besides initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9.1 The addition amounting to Rs. 25,07,50,000/- was on account of monies received by the respondent/assessee towards share capital and share premium, which, in turn, had been

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore, it is bad in law and invalid”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Another vs. 27 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India

SHRI JANAK GOEL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all, the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memo as well as the additional ground raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

249 in DIT vs Society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication. 11. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that there is no requirement of issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the income tax act in case of a search, assessment. He relied upon the decision of the honorable Delhi High Court in case of shri Ashok Chaddha wherein

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-08 vs. SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

68 of the Act as unexplained credits. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessee, inter alia, raised the issue that in the absence of a notice under Section 2015:DHC:8689-DB ITA 519/2015 Page 3 of 9 143(2) of the Act the order of re-assessment was invalid. The CIT (A) negatived

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-08 vs. SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

68 of the Act as unexplained credits. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessee, inter alia, raised the issue that in the absence of a notice under Section 2015:DHC:8689-DB ITA 519/2015 Page 3 of 9 143(2) of the Act the order of re-assessment was invalid. The CIT (A) negatived

M/S. SRI BALAJI FORGINGS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore, it is bad in law and invalid”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Another vs. M/s. Hotel Blue Moon in Civil Appeal No.1198

SUPERIOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) 16 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore

M/S. SPJ HOTELS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) 16 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore

M/S. SHIV SAI INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) 16 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore

M/S. SUPERSONIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

249 (Del.) in which it was held that “notice under section 143(2) 16 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Private Limited, Delhi. was simultaneously issued on filing of the return of income, therefore

M/S PRINT-FAB (INDIA) P. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Print-Fab (India) P. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd., 46/8, 1St Floor, East 14(4), New Delhi Patel Nagar, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccp7299M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 12/08/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds, Which Are Revised On 22.02.2016: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi [Briefly "The Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Briefly "The Act"). 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Not Validly Reopened, For No Valid Notice

68 of the Act. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed under section 147 of the Act on the ground that notice under section 148 of the Act was served beyond the period of limitation stipulated under the Act and also challenged the merit of the addition. The assessee also raised

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

249 (Del), the jurisdictional High Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act only after the return filed

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

249 (Del), the jurisdictional High Court invalidated an reassessment proceedings after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act only after the return filed

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

249 ITR 612. Thus, it is seen that the changed position of law after the withdrawal of circular no. 7 of 2009 was not the subject matter of examination of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Similarly, the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s M/s FARIDA LEATHER COMPANY pertains to the Assessment Year

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. Capacity of creditors to advance money; and Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO 3. Genuineness of transaction. As to the issue of genuineness of transaction, it was further held in the above decision that the transaction is not genuine, simply because some, out of many, of the transactions are by cheque. Conversely, it is not open for the Assessing

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 ITR 266 elucidated the principle relating to taxation of income in the following words: "...... It is well-settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income-tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt 'is not income under section 2(24) unless it is chargeable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

2 days i.e. 5th and 6th August, 2000 by the staff of Education Department. But till date the same has not be done which had already been informed to the Dy Director Telephonically, because of which the finalisation of the results was delayed. 14.08.2000 Part 8 / D-40(I) @ 78-79 Also available in Paperbook of CR.L.A. No.277