Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…from substituting a signed paper with another unsigned paper? 11.4 On mechanical approval aspect of PCIT Central dated 28.06.2022 with only remarks “approved”, ld. Counsel again relied Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in case of SBC minerals Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 475 ITR 360, where the Hon’ble Court has held as follows; “15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word “approved” by the PCCIT while granting approval under Section 151 to the re-opening under Section 148 is not enough…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 13, Delhi

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…from substituting a signed paper with another unsigned paper? 11.4 On mechanical approval aspect of PCIT Central dated 28.06.2022 with only remarks “approved”, ld. Counsel again relied Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in case of SBC minerals Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 475 ITR 360, where the Hon’ble Court has held as follows; “15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word “approved” by the PCCIT while granting approval under Section 151 to the re-opening under Section 148 is not enough…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…from substituting a signed paper with another unsigned paper? 11.4 On mechanical approval aspect of PCIT Central dated 28.06.2022 with only remarks “approved”, ld. Counsel again relied Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in case of SBC minerals Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 475 ITR 360, where the Hon’ble Court has held as follows; “15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word “approved” by the PCCIT while granting approval under Section 151 to the re-opening under Section 148 is not enough…

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…from substituting a signed paper with another unsigned paper? 11.4 On mechanical approval aspect of PCIT Central dated 28.06.2022 with only remarks “approved”, ld. Counsel again relied Hon’ble Delhi High court decision in case of SBC minerals Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 475 ITR 360, where the Hon’ble Court has held as follows; “15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word “approved” by the PCCIT while granting approval under Section 151 to the re-opening under Section 148 is not enough…

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

…rcise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer-Revenue's appeal dismissed." 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT [2025] 475 ITR 360 (Del.) has held as under:- 10. “Before considering the merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to examine the relevant legal framework. 11. Section 151 of the Act, as it stood prior to the substitution by Act 13 of 2001 is reproduced hereunder: "151. Sanction for issue of notice.-(1) No notice shall be issued under section…

Santosh Rani Legal Heir of Late Sh Parveen Kalyan, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

…hereby quashed and set aside." 26. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT [2025] 475 ITR 360 (Del.) held as under:- 10. “Before considering the merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to examine the relevant legal framework. 11. Section 151 of the Act, as it stood prior to the substitution by Act 13 of 2001 is reproduced hereunder: "151. Sanction for issue of notice.-(1) No notice shall be issued under section 148…

Arun Duggal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

…46 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 73 of the order has make a reference with regard to the sanction for re-opening. Besides this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 475 ITR 360 (Delhi) and other judgements which are extracted here under for ready-reference:- (i) Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. Vs State of Maharshtra & Ors. 2025 INSC 801; (ii) SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 475 ITR 369 (Delhi High Court); (iii) Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT 473 ITR 205 (Bombay High Court); (iv) The Pr.CIT-7…

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

…ule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.” 15. Further, reliance placed in the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT [2025] 475 ITR 360 (Del.) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- 10. “Before considering the merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to examine the relevant legal framework. 11. Section 151 of the Act, as it stood prior to the substitution by Act 13 of 2001 is reproduced hereunder: "151. Sanction for issue of notice.-(1) No noti…

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

…ule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.” 15. Further, reliance placed in the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT [2025] 475 ITR 360 (Del.) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- 10. “Before considering the merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to examine the relevant legal framework. 11. Section 151 of the Act, as it stood prior to the substitution by Act 13 of 2001 is reproduced hereunder: "151. Sanction for issue of notice.-(1) No noti…