JUDGEMENTopens in new window

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter referred to as "the Act"] and are directed against a common order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the 2022:DHC:234-DB ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 4 of 53 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"]. 1.1 The Tribunal, via the impugned order, rendered a decision in twelve appeals

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter referred to as "the Act"] and are directed against a common order dated 31.10.2019, passed by the 2022:DHC:234-DB ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 4 of 53 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"]. 1.1 The Tribunal, via the impugned order, rendered a decision in twelve appeals

SURENDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act it was pleaded before me that for want of clarity of provision to be applied at all stages , addition must be deleted on this count also. Further it was argued by Ld AR that view of Ld CIT(A) on evidentiary value of investigation wing report like any other document and expert opinion is contrary

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. DOUBLE PLUS SOFTWARE P.LTD, NEDW DELHI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

68 of the Act is not applicable in case of general entries. 10. As per the assessee instead of passing journal entries the cheques have been utilized for directing the other party to make the payment and accordingly the cheque was endorsed under the seal and signature with necessary directions. No cash or legal tender or banking channel was involved

PARVEEN,VPO KHANDA KHERI vs. ITO, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

68 of the Act is not applicable in case of general entries. 10. As per the assessee instead of passing journal entries the cheques have been utilized for directing the other party to make the payment and accordingly the cheque was endorsed under the seal and signature with necessary directions. No cash or legal tender or banking channel was involved

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. MATCHLESS GLASS SERVICES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘ITAT’) in a batch of two hundred and eighty-four appeals including twelve appeals pertaining to the Assessee in respect of six Assessment Years (‘AY’) being

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JRD STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to this

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereafter) is: “Whether the order passed by the ITAT to the extent the same deletes the additions made by the assessing officer suffers from perversity?” 2. The facts necessary to decide the case are that the assessee, a Chartered Accountant was also a member of Delhi Stock Exchange; he commenced business