ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

reopen assessment is much wider under the amended provision and can be exercised even after assessee has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts. To similar view were the conclusions of this Court in Rakesh Aggarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (Del) 272 : (1997) 225 ITR 496 (Del) : TC S51.4080. It is to be noted at this juncture

DEVKI NANDAN BINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): “Provided that where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – II vs. CO. LTD

reopen the assessment. The observations in Burlop’s case, noticed above, were made in the peculiar fact-situation of that case and cannot be construed to be of universal application irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 26. The decision in the case of Burlop Dealers Ltd. (supra) had been rendered in the context of Section

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be,\nfor the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : ...\". (emphasis supplied by us)\n\n(2.6.2)\nFor taking a view on the validity of reopening

PITNEY BOWES INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, out of the five appeals of the assessee, the ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

depreciation amounting to Rs.56,54,840/- was allowed to the assessee and income to that extent was under assessed in the assessment order dated 28/12/2007 . Accordingly, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment and reopened

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reopening reasons discussed in para 3 onwards of the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 that since the assessee was found to have inflated the corresponding acquisition of fixed assets purchased in the preceding assessment years itself, corresponding depreciation

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reopening reasons discussed in para 3 onwards of the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 that since the assessee was found to have inflated the corresponding acquisition of fixed assets purchased in the preceding assessment years itself, corresponding depreciation

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

depreciation. The ld. Counsel asserted that re-opening of assessment for AY 2011-12 is the result of ‘change of opinion’. The law does not permit the AO to re-open assessment on ‘change of opinion’. He thus prayed for quashing reopening

INDIA LUXCO RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

depreciation. The ld. Counsel asserted that re-opening of assessment for AY 2011-12 is the result of ‘change of opinion’. The law does not permit the AO to re-open assessment on ‘change of opinion’. He thus prayed for quashing reopening

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROMOTION CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation. The ld. Counsel asserted that re-opening of assessment for AY 2011-12 is the result of ‘change of opinion’. The law does not permit the AO to re-open assessment on ‘change of opinion’. He thus prayed for quashing reopening

DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. PARAM EXIM LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): 11 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. “Provided that where an assessment

DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. KLA FOOD (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross-objection of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): 11 ITA.No.2846/D/2015 & CO.No.333/D/2015 M/s. KLA Food (India) Ltd., New Delhi ITA.No.2845/D/2015 & CO.No.372/D/2015 M/s. Param Exim Ltd., New Delhi. “Provided that where an assessment

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reopening of Assessment: “In this case it has been noticed that the assessee has claimed and was allowed franchise fee of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-. The franchise fee being of capital nature was not allowable and should have been disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee after allowing depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation claimed in return Tax Audit Report - Assessment u/s - 143(3) Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated on a different issue, were quashed by ITAT vide order dated 21.05.2015. 2001-02 30.10.200 Order u/s 143(3) 4th year of claim, 1 dated 29.3.2004 allowed originally by the assessing officer. Subsequently, the case was reopened

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation claimed in return Tax Audit Report - Assessment u/s - 143(3) Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated on a different issue, were quashed by ITAT vide order dated 21.05.2015. 2001-02 30.10.200 Order u/s 143(3) 4th year of claim, 1 dated 29.3.2004 allowed originally by the assessing officer. Subsequently, the case was reopened

M/S LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation claimed in return Tax Audit Report - Assessment u/s - 143(3) Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated on a different issue, were quashed by ITAT vide order dated 21.05.2015. 2001-02 30.10.200 Order u/s 143(3) 4th year of claim, 1 dated 29.3.2004 allowed originally by the assessing officer. Subsequently, the case was reopened

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation claimed in return Tax Audit Report - Assessment u/s - 143(3) Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated on a different issue, were quashed by ITAT vide order dated 21.05.2015. 2001-02 30.10.200 Order u/s 143(3) 4th year of claim, 1 dated 29.3.2004 allowed originally by the assessing officer. Subsequently, the case was reopened

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation claimed in return Tax Audit Report - Assessment u/s - 143(3) Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated on a different issue, were quashed by ITAT vide order dated 21.05.2015. 2001-02 30.10.200 Order u/s 143(3) 4th year of claim, 1 dated 29.3.2004 allowed originally by the assessing officer. Subsequently, the case was reopened

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Depreciation claimed in return Tax Audit Report - Assessment u/s - 143(3) Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated on a different issue, were quashed by ITAT vide order dated 21.05.2015. 2001-02 30.10.200 Order u/s 143(3) 4th year of claim, 1 dated 29.3.2004 allowed originally by the assessing officer. Subsequently, the case was reopened