“tangible material”

Tremendous Mining and Minerals Pvt Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Tremendous Mining & Vs Dcit, Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3, Cabin No.-1, 1205, New Delhi. 89-Hemkunth Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aacct8840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-23/10303/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 24.12.2019 Passed U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Central Circle- 3, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

entire addition is based on surmises and presumption, because, the ld. CIT (A)'s reasoning is based practice prevalent in the market sans any tangible material or inquiry or evidence on record. Thus, the addition made on basis of estimation of 2% of commission income in the case of these

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

quashing the initiation of re-assessment proceedings on. both counts i.e., initiation of re-assessment proceedings is without fresh tangible material and that sanction under section 151 is invalid. Therefore, once the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this question is not challenged by the Revenue Department, it became ... provision is the formation of belief by the AO that income has escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons. It cannot be supplied subsequently either during the proceedings when objections to the reopening

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Assessee offered a plausible explanation for the document. The burden shifted to the Revenue to show, on the basis of some reliable and tangible material, how rate at which the flats on the second and third floors of VT was higher than that dictated in the sales register ... Assessee offered a plausible explanation for the document. The burden shifted to the Revenue to show, on the basis of some reliable and tangible material, how rate at which the flats on the second and third floors of VT was higher than that dictated in the sales register

Apinder Singh Bharti, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

that apart from these bald assertions, there is not even an iota of discussion in the reopening reasons as to what was the relevant tangible material leading the learned Assessing Officer to form reasons to believe that the assessee’s impugned on-money liable to be assessed had escaped assessment