Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Star Wire India Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

…$~12 to 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 736/2025, CM APPL. 77312/2025, CM APPL. 77313/2025. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhati, SSC versus STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs. 13 + ITA 737/2025, CM APPL. 77393/2025, CM APPL. 77394/2025. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhati, SSC versus STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTI…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Star Wire India Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

…$~12 to 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 736/2025, CM APPL. 77312/2025, CM APPL. 77313/2025. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhati, SSC versus STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs. 13 + ITA 737/2025, CM APPL. 77393/2025, CM APPL. 77394/2025. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhati, SSC versus STAR WIRE INDIA LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTI…

The Hisar Leading Bank Co-Op Non-Agri Thrift & Credit Society, Hisar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

…Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, cited supra. 6.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, decided on 24.03.2025 in paras 8, 11 & 12 held as under: “8. In a subsequent decision in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754, the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded…

M/S Quasar India Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Quasar India Limited, Vs. Assessment Unit-Nfca, 101, First Floor, Baroda Tower, Income Tax Department, Central Market, Prashant Vihar, Acit, Circle 19(1), Rohini, Delhi-1100 85. Delhi Pan :Aaacq0219Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

…resent petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 23.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the Assessing Officer [AO] on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 and by this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB. 4. The petitioner had filed its return of income dated 30.09.2014 for Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15 declaring a total income of 864,77,780/-. 5. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] was issued by the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), New Delhi vs. Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Kolahai, Infotech Private Limited Ward-14(3) , Room 129, First Floor Transport Centre No.305 Cr Building I.P. Punjabi Bagh New Delhi, Delhi- Estate New Delhi -110002 110034

…s issued on 30-07-2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 149(1) of the Act, and TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union Of India V. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 6. Reliance has also placed on the followings judgments; (i)IBIBO groups Private Limited v. ACIT, circle 10(1) & Anr. W.P. (C) 17639/2022 (ii) Pratishtha Garg v. ACIT, central Circle 25 Delhi (Delhi High Court) (iii) Income tax officer , ward -62(1), New Delhi v. Girish Kumar Gupt…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sbk Trade and Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Cc – 04, Vs. M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) Co No.110 /Del/2025 (In Ita No.2173/Del/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S. Sbk Trade & Infrastructure Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Cc – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aarcs9589C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca Shri Samyak Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT, CC – 04, vs. M/s. SBK Trade and Infrastructure Private Ltd., New Delhi. 211, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AARCS9589C) CO No.110 /Del/2025 (in ITA No.2173/DEL/2025) (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/s. SBK Trade and Infrastructure Private Ltd., vs. ACIT, CC – 04, 211, New Delhi House, New Delhi. 27, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AARCS9589C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Delhi vs. Interlink Foods Private Limited, South Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…s issued on 27.07.2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. And, TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 14. Ld. AR further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that in the case of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur v. R.K. Build Creation Pvt Ltd: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024 at Page Nos 7-8 of the case law compilation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), New Delhi vs. Interlink Foods Private Limited, South Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…s issued on 27.07.2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. And, TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 14. Ld. AR further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that in the case of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur v. R.K. Build Creation Pvt Ltd: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024 at Page Nos 7-8 of the case law compilation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Delhi vs. Interlink Foods Private Limited, South Delhi

Accordingly, the cross objections for AY 2016-17 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…s issued on 27.07.2022 which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. And, TOLA is not applicable in respect of the said notice, as was conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra). The impugned notice is liable to be set aside.” 14. Ld. AR further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that in the case of Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur v. R.K. Build Creation Pvt Ltd: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59625/2024 at Page Nos 7-8 of the case law compilation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the…

Honeywell Exim Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Honeywell Exim Private Vs. Acit, Limited, House No. 121, Circle-10(1), A Pkt., B-04, Keshavpuram. Delhi New Delhi-1100 35 1100 07 Pan: Aadch3719B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ourt in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, cited supra. 6.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, decided on 24.03.2025 in paras 8, 11 & 12 held as under: “8. In a subsequent decision in Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754, the Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

…beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Since TOLA was not applicable in respect of the said notices under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra), the impugned notice is liable to be set aside 7. It is also submitted that the case of the assessee is similar to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Private Limited Versus DCIT/ACIT, Circle 4, Nagpur, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 5 (1), Nagpur, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Departm…

Akshay Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Akshay Jain, Acit, B4/52, 1St Floor, Paschim Vihar, Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi. International Taxation, Delhi. Pan No.Agdpj9695F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 (1) of the Act. Since TOLA was not applicable in respect of the said notices under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as conceded by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra), the impugned notice is liable to be set aside 12. Accordingly, the impugned notice and proceedings emanating from the said notice are set aside. 13. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.” 6 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of NATIONALIST CONGRESS PARTY Vs. DCIT (supra). Respectfully…