DAR HOUSING LIMITED,NCT OF DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, DELHI
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income. The Delhi High Court set aside the assessment order and remanded it back to the AO, directing a fresh hearing via video conferencing. However, the AO made new additions beyond the scope of the original assessment and the High Court's directions.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions that were not part of the original assessment or the High Court's remand directions. The AO's powers on remand are confined to the subject matter of the original writ before the High Court.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making new additions on remand beyond the scope of the original assessment and the High Court's directions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 36(1)(vii),Section 36(1)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:
This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-26), New Delhi dated 29.1.2026. Assessment was framed by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi vide order dated 20.9.2022 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) relevant to assessment year 2018-19. 2. The first issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the order of the CIT(A) in not considering that the Assessing Officer while giving appeal effect to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court has exceeded his juri iction b
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)
- Bank of India, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 2810/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- ITO-41.3.4, Mumbai vs Urmila Syntex, MumbaiITA 2458/MUM/2026[2013]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Small Industries Development Bank of India…ITA 870/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Small Industries Development Bank of India… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 9170/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- DCIT CC-8(3), Mumbai vs Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd, MumbaiITA 2503/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The Lead Factory vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes.Karnataka · 7 Oct 2026
- Dolphin Motor Agency, Cuttack vs. Additional Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-Ii, CuttackOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- Devendra Singh Kanyal vs. Assistant CommissionerUttarakhand · 7 Oct 2026
- Trivitron Healthcare Private LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner Division Vi CGST Central Excise Commissionerate BelapurBombay · 7 Oct 2026
- Mr Ca Mukunda vs. Mr. Ca. Shiva Prakash H SKarnataka · 7 Oct 2026