SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

AJIT PAL SINGH CHOUDHARY,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal Accoutant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of A-139, Meera Bagh New Income Tax Circle 43(1) Delhi 110087 Pan No. Acrpc1266D (Appellant) (Respondent)

151A of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case the, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the case of the assessee without possessing the jurisdiction in terms of instruction no. 1/2011[F.No. 187/12/2010-IT

JYOTI CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 6(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 149 of the Act. 5. That without conducting any independent enquiry and without supplying the material documents and/or information which was a mandate condition prescribed u/s 148A(b) of the Act had issued a Show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) and consequentially passed an order u/s 148A(d) and subsequently issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. 6. That

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

151A as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 147/144B, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

151A as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 147/144B, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

151A as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 147/144B, is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case

SANTOSH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 59(3), VIKAS BHAWAN I.P.ESTE DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-59(3), F-26/124, Sector 7, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Bhnps9416B

capital gains of Rs.17,05,405/- was calculated on the sale of property and as the same was invested during the year, 2 deduction u/s 54 of the Act was allowed for the entire sale consideration and for the remaining amount of Rs.47 lakhs (Rs.90 lakhs (-) Rs.43 lakhs) was added u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BEE of the Act being unverified

DCIT CIRCLE-28(1) , CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. ASHWANI KHURANA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Circle 28(1) Vs. Ashwani Khurana Room No. 1001, 10Th Floor 5, Green Avenue Vasant E-2, Block Civic Centre, Kunj, New Delhi – 110002 New Delhi – 110070 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepk3731G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 151A r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and both JAO as well as units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction under the Income- tax Act 1961, which has also recently been held by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in its order in WP No WPO/1566/2023 dt 13.09.2023. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case

HARISH BANGA,HISAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

151A. The reopening process, including the issuance of notice u/s 148, was not compliant with the prescribed faceless mechanism, rendering it invalid. 2 Harish Banga 1.4 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the order u/s 148A(d) dated 26/03/2022 was passed mechanically, without independent application of mind, and did not address the Appellant's submissions that the alleged