COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

249(4)(b). This is mandatory. This requirement has not been complied with. 24. However, we would not like to decide and dispose of the appeals on the present reasoning, in view of the questions of law that have been admitted above, which are on a different aspect. We have referred to the said Section as to clarify

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 814] where this Court observed: (SCC pp. 258-59, paras 21-24) “21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. … 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under

XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

249/- interest income earned from short term fixed deposits by considering the same as income from other sources 2. Addition to “interest on short-term fixed deposits’ on 1,02,261 account of reconciliation with TDS certificates and taxing it as ‘Income from Other Sources’. 3. Reduction in deduction claimed under section

BAL KISHAN TYAGI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Vs Ito, Bal Kishan Tyagi, Vill.-Sultanpur, Post-Gejha, Ward-1(2), Sector-128, Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh-201308 Pan-Afept3019H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year

68 of The Act. 3) That without prejudice to the above contentions, on facts of the case and in law, the assessment made is illegal since: a) Mandatory notice/assessment should be issued/made by his jurisdiction officer, i.e. Ward 5(1)(2) but in hurry, it is issued byWard-1(2), Noida. b) As the jurisdiction over the assessee was different

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)

b. Mr. Shri Chand As per Answer to Question No. 3 at page 4 and Answer to Question No. 2 at page 5, Mr, Shri Chand has confirmed that he had entered into an agreement with the assessee for purchase of agricultural land and paid the amount to the assessee and also mentioned the purpose for which such agreement

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

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

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

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

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

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI vs. MIRA EXIM LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

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

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

CIT VI vs. VERIZON INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come