HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses what was the basis of treating Himanshu Verma as entry provider and what was the connecting link between Himanshu Verma and assessee here in as it is not mentioned in reasons that what the nature of operation conducted by revenue on Himanshu Verma and what were the key findings of said operation which were divulged

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses what was the basis of treating Himanshu Verma as entry provider and what was the connecting link between Himanshu Verma and assessee here in as it is not mentioned in reasons that what the nature of operation conducted by revenue on Himanshu Verma and what were the key findings of said operation which were divulged

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

E. ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 51 - 74 F. IDENTIFICATION OF THE COMMENCEMENT POINT FOR THE 75 - 85 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:31:23 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2024 & connected matters Page 43 of 179 PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK G. COMPUTATION OF THE SIX AND TEN YEAR BLOCK

PARTAP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 143(2) of the Act having been issued and served on the appellant prior to the impugned order, the order of assessment so made is vitiated, void ab-initio and therefore, ought to have quashed as such. 3. Grounds of appeal raised in A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and facts of the case are identical, excepting figure

PARTAP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 143(2) of the Act having been issued and served on the appellant prior to the impugned order, the order of assessment so made is vitiated, void ab-initio and therefore, ought to have quashed as such. 3. Grounds of appeal raised in A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and facts of the case are identical, excepting figure

PARTAP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 143(2) of the Act having been issued and served on the appellant prior to the impugned order, the order of assessment so made is vitiated, void ab-initio and therefore, ought to have quashed as such. 3. Grounds of appeal raised in A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 and facts of the case are identical, excepting figure

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

68,980/- 5 Date of issue of shares 26.02.2011 Shares were allotted by AJL to YI in lieu of even before getting the loan payment of Rs. 50 Lakhs from Y.I. 6 Date of loan taken by 15.02.2011 This indicates that on YI from M/s Dotex the date of assignment Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. of loan by the AICC

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.A. METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and impugned orders dated 28

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 R.A. Metals Private Limited Vs. Ito, S.No.3, G/F-2120 Sona Bazar, Delhi. Bhagirath Palace, Delhi 110 006. Pan Aafcr1911H (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 in the assessment year 2017-18 vide assessment order dated 25.12.2019 of the Learned Assessing Officer was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company e-filed its return of income on 25.09.2017 declaring income of Rs. 10.73,540/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143 of Income

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case