Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income ... vs Aditya Khanna on 15 April, 2015

Bhageria Finance & Investment Pvt Ltd, ... vs Ito Ward - 4(4), New Delhi on 23 December, 2020

4.1 After going through the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we are of the view AO has completely ignored the reassessment order dated 11.3.2015 passed u/s. 148/143(3) of the Act in which he has accepted the cash credit in dispute in the form of share capital from these 5 entities and again reopened the case of the assessee for the same assessment year on the same ground by recording the almost same reasons and made the same 17 ITA NO. 1801/DEL/2020 - AY - 2010-11 addition which is in dispute while completing the assessment in dispute u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2017, which is not permissible as per law as well as in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 4.2 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book and the written submissions alongwith various case laws especially the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed in ITA 54/2017 in the case of Pr. CIT, Central (I) vs. Aditya Khanna, as reproduced above, the addition in dispute is deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Qualcomm Incorported , Secunderabad vs Assessee

111. The next contention of the Ld.Sr.Counsel with specific reference to 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 is that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the sanction of the appropriate authority. The pith and substance of the arguments of the Ld.Sr.Counsel is that notice under Sec.148 should be issued only after the JCIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The case of the assessee is that sanction for issue of notice under Section 148 was given by the Addl.DIT whereas the sanction ought to have been given only by the JCIT as mandated by the provisions of S.151 of the Act. Since the notice was issued without sanction of the appropriate authority, the Ld.Sr.Counsel argued that the same is liable to be quashed as void ab initio. Reliance was placed in the case of ITO vs. Mrs.Navin Khanna. In the case of Mrs.Navin Khanna approval was given by higher authority i.e. the CIT, whereas, the JCIT was the designated authority. The case on hand Ms.Sumedha Verma Ojha gave sanction for issue of notice under Section 148. She was authorized to exercise the power of an Addl.CIT. Under Section 2(28 C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 a JCIT means a Jt.Commissioner or an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus the sanction in this case 108 is by an appropriate authority. One cannot go by the nomenclature or rank of the Officer but what has to be seen is whether the Officer is having current jurisdiction conferred by the Board.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 103 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1