PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD., HISAR

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

transferred to the directors and their family members at much lower price. “24. in the present case, since no incriminating material was found, therefore, the addition made by the ao u/s 153a of the act was not justified. 26. a similar view has been taken by the hon'ble jurisdictiona l high court in the case

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, 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

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

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

transfer the assets or documents, which he believes belongs to the assessee, to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over that assessee. The assessing officer of the assessee on receipt of such asset or document seized would have jurisdiction to commence proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. The assessing officer has, thereafter, to apply his mind as to whether