BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS form 26QB, section 194IA) amounting to Rs.4,98,66,600/- which was not disclosed in ITR as ITR for the assessment year 2014-15 was not filed. The case was reopened vide order under Section 148A

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS form 26QB, section 194IA) amounting to Rs.4,98,66,600/- which was not disclosed in ITR as ITR for the assessment year 2014-15 was not filed. The case was reopened vide order under Section 148A

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.

148A for a notice issued under the old provisions of 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

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.

148A for a notice issued under the old provisions of 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

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A read with section 148 of the Act culminating in the final assessment order, without appreciating that there is no escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant for the relevant year. 3.6 That the final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is barred by limitation in terms of section 149(1)(b) as the conditions mentioned

HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A read with section 148 of the Act culminating in the final assessment order, without appreciating that there is no escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant for the relevant year. 3.6 That the final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is barred by limitation in terms of section 149(1)(b) as the conditions mentioned

HCL AUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A read with section 148 of the Act culminating in the final assessment order, without appreciating that there is no escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant for the relevant year. 3.6 That the final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is barred by limitation in terms of section 149(1)(b) as the conditions mentioned

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A read with section 148 of the Act culminating in the final assessment order, without appreciating that there is no escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant for the relevant year. 2.6 That the final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 is barred by limitation in terms of 1" proviso to section

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A read with section 148 of the Act culminating in the final assessment order, without appreciating that there is no escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant for the relevant year. 2.6 That the final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 is barred by limitation in terms of 1" proviso to section

HCL TECHNOLOGIES MEXICO S DE RL DE CV,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

Bench: Ms Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A read with section 148 of the Act culminating in the final assessment order, without appreciating that there is no escapement of income in the hands of the Appellant for the relevant year. 2.6 That the final assessment order pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 is barred by limitation in terms of 1" proviso to section

SRI LANKA CRICKET,SRI LANKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

148A(d) of the Act is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in holding that the income earned by the appellant from M/s Lex Sportel Vision Private Limited ('Lex Sportel') on account of grant of rights

MAXIS MOBILE SERVICES SDN. BHD.,MALAYSIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS u/s 195 has not been deducted. The amount is further verified from the detailed information which is annexed at pages 42 to 45 of the Paper. These pages show that Cellular Roaming charges amounting to Rs 12,94,430.28 has been paid to the assessee under acknowledgement no. R2013020KBOB. We find force in the arguments of the ld. counsel

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]

148A(b) and Section 148 A(d) of the Act are clearly not impacted by Explanation 3. As we read Sections 147 and 148 of the Act, we come to the firm conclusion that the subject of validity of initiation of reassessment would have to be independently evaluated and cannot be confused with the power that could ultimately be available

JEET KAUR,SAINIK FARM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

148A of the Act in as much as the complete investigation records, information relied on, and the complete witness statements were never provided to the assessee, thereby denying the fair opportunity to assessee to cross examine, rebut and corroborate the said underlying information. 3. The impugned reassessment order is liable to be quashed as the same has been passed completely

VENKATESH RAGHAV RAO HEBBANI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 30.03.2022. In response, assessee filed return of income 26.07.2022 declaring gross income of Rs.27,07,956/- and net taxable income of Rs.26,78,220/- claiming deduction u/s Chapter-VIA to the extent of Rs.29,739/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL BV THE NETHERLANDS,NETHERLAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay petition of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshboston Scientific International Vs. Acit, Bv The Netherlands, Circle-1(1)(2), 100A, The Capital Court Oiof International Taxation, Palm Marg Munirka, Delhi- New Delhi 110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4238J Sa No. 152/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 789/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Boston Scientific International Vs. Acit, Bv The Netherlands, Circle-1(1)(2), 100A, The Capital Court Oiof International Taxation, Palm Marg Munirka, Delhi- New Delhi 110067 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb4238J

TDS. No details are available regarding payment of taxes withheld and deposited in current year and the same has been allowed as per provisions of section 40(a) (ia). 3. It is also noticed from the 3CD report of the assessee, that the tax auditor has certified an amount of Rs.46,50,508/- as inadmissible u/s 40(a) against clause

RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer. iii) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, there was no valid sanction obtained by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for re-opening the Assessment Proceedings. iv) On the facts and the circumstances

MAHAVEERA RICE WORLD (NOW KNOWN AS MAHAVIRA RICE WORLD LLP),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 46(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

section 147, 148, 148A, 151, 149 of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in the case in upholding the disallowance of Rs.58,19,782/- u/s 69C treating the same as bogus purchase in terms of provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BANS AEROSOL PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7127/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, R.No 317, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. Delhi 110055 बिाम Vs. Bans Aerosol P. Ltd., 3/110, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaccb-1901-C अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate (Through Vc) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 07.07.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 7 Days. The Revenue Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Considering The Explanation Furnished By The Department, Delay Of 7 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

148A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were initiated. The assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 24.03.2023, making following additions: (i) Addition of Rs.15,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Act treating unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit; & (ii) Addition of Rs.98,088/- u/s.69C