COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

Section 148 was issued by ITO, Dimapur on 26th June, 1987. (7) For the assessment year 1987-88, the respondent had filed return with ITO, Dimapur on 27th April, 1988 but defect memo dated 6th July, 1988 was issued. However, no order was passed declaring the return void or bad on account of the fact that TDS

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

Section 148 was issued by ITO, Dimapur on 26th June, 1987. (7) For the assessment year 1987-88, the respondent had filed return with ITO, Dimapur on 27th April, 1988 but defect memo dated 6th July, 1988 was issued. However, no order was passed declaring the return void or bad on account of the fact that TDS

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

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

section 148 of the Act. The same cannot be upheld as the old provisions ceased to have force of law post 31.03.2021.” 4. Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the same may be admitted

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

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

section 148 of the Act. The same cannot be upheld as the old provisions ceased to have force of law post 31.03.2021.” 4. Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the same may be admitted

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

148 taxmann. com 313 (Calcutta) has held as under: Where Assessing Officer solely based on statement of assessee's director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee-company as undisclosed income and made additions under section 68, since said statement was retracted during search operation and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

148 taxmann. com 313 (Calcutta) has held as under: Where Assessing Officer solely based on statement of assessee's director recorded during search operation treated share application money received by assessee-company as undisclosed income and made additions under section 68, since said statement was retracted during search operation and there was no cash trail or any other corroborative evidence

SHRI MALKIAT SINGH,DELHI vs. CIT(APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Malkiat Singh, Vs.Ito, Ward 45(1), Wz 46/3B, Krishna Puri, New Delhi Gali No. 1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi – 110 018 (Pan:Bsrps2158H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.10.2025 Order

148 are thus barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has not filed ITR u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit at an income of Rs. 35,91,700/- out of which Rs. 35,12,500/- was assessed as short term capital gain

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 147 of the Act. 15. It is brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the similar dispute arose in the case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 37 DTR (Chennai) (T.M) (Trib) and the issue was decided by Hon’ble Third Member in favour of the assessee. Therefore, in the light

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 147 of the Act. 15. It is brought to our notice by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the similar dispute arose in the case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 37 DTR (Chennai) (T.M) (Trib) and the issue was decided by Hon’ble Third Member in favour of the assessee. Therefore, in the light

SMT. RAJ BALA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS of Rs.80,000/- and Advance tax of Rs.1,38,791/-, therefore, I believe that an income of Rs.9,43,897/- has escaped assessment. Hence, proceedings u/s 147 of Income Tax Act are being initiated against the Assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 and notice u/s 148 issued.” 3. Further, the AO mentions in the assessment order that there

JOGINDER DAHIYA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

TDS of Rs.80,000/- and Advance tax of Rs.1,38,791/-, therefore, I believe that an income of Rs.9,43,897/- has escaped assessment. Hence, proceedings u/s 147 of Income Tax Act are being initiated against the Assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 and notice u/s 148 issued.” 3. Further, the AO mentions in the assessment order that there

KASHISH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit C/O. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] Pan : Aacck3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS thereon and further the Appellant had repaid the said loan during the year ended March 31, 2006. The aforesaid squared up loan transaction had been reflected by the Appellant in its Tax Audit Report in Annexure 9 , titled " Particulars of each loan or deposit in an amount exceeding the limit specified in section 269SS taken or accepted during

CREATIVE DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 6(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Creative Dyeing & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ward-6(4), G-6, Vaikunth, 82-83, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aabcc8332R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Sh. P.N. Shastri, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2022 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. In Ground Nos. 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Due To Non-Service Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Whereas, In Ground No. 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Ay: 2010-11

148 of the Act, initiation of proceeding under section 147 of the Act is vitiated. He submitted, for the impugned assessment year, the assessee had voluntarily filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. He submitted, the assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act prior to reopening

SHOKEEN REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 148 of the I.T. Act and also requested to file audited books of accounts showing company as booked expenses amounting to Rs. 37,34,003/- excluding TDS

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. VRINDA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Acit, Central Circle 4, Vs. Vrinda Farms Private Limited, New Delhi. 43, Community Centre, Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) Co Nos.13 & 19/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4849/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vrinda Farms Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 4, 43, Community Centre, New Delhi. Bhageria House, Zakir Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacv0355L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 29.10.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]

section 68 has been duly discharged by assessee by submitting the following documents before AO as well as CIT(A): 1 Copy of Confirmation of Accounts 2 Copy of Bank statements of Lender 3 Audited Financials of Lender 4 Copy of ITR Acknowledgement of Lenders 5 133(6) responses filed by Lenders  All these details have been filed creditor wise

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

148 of the Act and the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO is invalid and not sustainable in law. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. AO on the basis of report of investigation wing

ACIT CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI vs. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

148 of the Act and the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO is invalid and not sustainable in law. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. AO on the basis of report of investigation wing

DECENT FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kulbharat & Dr.B. R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Decent Financial Services Dcit Pvt. Ltd. A-86, Dda Shed, Vs Circle – 7 (1) Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd2899P (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS deducted by the borrower of Rs. 36.09 lacs.” 4. The provisions of section 147 are as under :- “5 147. If the 6[Assessing] Officer 7[has reason to believe 8] that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment 8 for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148

RATI RAM,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result all the three appeals of the assessees are partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3024/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satya Pal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aabpy6152A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3022/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Satyabir Singh, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aacpy7890A A N D आ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 3023/Del/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rati Ram, Income Tax Officer, बनाम S/O. Late Maha Singh, Ward : 4 (1) Vs. Vill. & P.O. Nakhrola, Tehsil Gurgaon. Manesar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan No. Aaopy3440Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellants ""थ"/ Respondents

section 148 unless the case has been transferred by a competent authority to another Assessing Officer u/s 127 and, in that event, latter will have jurisdiction to proceed. Thus, in the absence of any transfer order, no other Assessing Officer than the one who initiated the proceedings or completed the assessment shall have jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings