BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 50[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of 51[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

1) of the Act, void ab initio.\n7. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP have erred in law in framing a high-pitched assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act by making erroneous, arbitrary and ad-hoc additions based

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

price fixation of the fertiliser's transactions by the concerned seller/ buyer where none had even alleged that the NRI was ever a party to the impugned transactions. Further, it is also brought to the notice that as per the satisfaction note dated 29/09/2021, the AO contends in the conclusion that "may have bearing on his income" whereas the section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

132 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the\nIncome Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy\nGroup of cases. In the course of search operation, certain\nincriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found\nand seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued on the\nassessee and assessment has been completed u/s 153C/144

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEWBURY HOLDING TWO LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are\nallowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable\nto be dismissed

132 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the\nIncome Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy\nGroup of cases. In the course of search operation, certain\nincriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found\nand seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued on the\nassessee and assessment has been completed u/s 153C/144

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. I ENERGIZER HOLDINGS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. ISERVICES INVESTMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy CO Nos. 353 to 356 & Others/Del/2015 Rolland Enterprises Ltd. & Others . Group of cases. In the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized. Accordingly, notice u/s 153C was issued

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

transferred to various units including the units eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB/80 IC of the act based upon the sales ratio of all manufacturing units. 4. During assessment year 2005 – 06 to 2011 – 12 assessment orders were passed under the provisions of Section 153A/143 (3) of the act based upon search and seizure operations carried out under the provisions