ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

ARUN DUGGAL,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

SANTOSH RANI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH PARVEEN KALYAN,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Santosh Rani Vs Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Shri Parveen Ward-1, Karnal, Kalyan, Krishna Nagar, Gamri, Haryana-132001. Thanesar, Distt.-Kurukshetra, Haryana-136118. Pan-Awhpr4944D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income

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

depreciation\nallowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the\nconcerned assessment year. However, where an assessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section\n147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant\n assessment year, unless

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI

depreciation\nallowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the\nconcerned assessment year. However, where an assessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section\n147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant\n assessment year, unless

MAGNOLIA MARTINIQUE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Depreciation Rs.17,52,463/-) is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,02,62,940/-. 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed grounds of appeal and also filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions and remand report

MAGNOLIA MARTINIQUE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Depreciation Rs.17,52,463/-) is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,02,62,940/-. 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed grounds of appeal and also filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions and remand report

MAGNOLIA MARTINIQUE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Depreciation Rs.17,52,463/-) is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,02,62,940/-. 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed grounds of appeal and also filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions and remand report

MAGNOLIA MARTINIQUE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

Depreciation Rs.17,52,463/-) is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,02,62,940/-. 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed grounds of appeal and also filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions and remand report

REGALIA LAMINATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Regalia Laminates Mcd Vs Income Tax Officer Buliding, Ist Floor Db Gupta Ward- 62 (5) Road Paharganj, New Delhi- New Delhi 110055 Pan No. Aaifr7691F (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or re-computation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI vs. AMEETA MEHRA, NEW DELHI

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

148A(d) of the Act on 29/07/2022 recording satisfaction that the credits in the account amounting to Rs. 12,06,11,836/- remained unexplained and thus the same constitute income which has been escaped assessment. An assessment order came to be passed on 31/05/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act by making following additions: “a) Addition