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, 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

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

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

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

153C read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being issued for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009.” 10. The Assessee disputed that the documents referred to in the satisfaction note belonged to the Assessee. It was submitted that although 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 11 of 23 some