M/S FRICK INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Frick India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range-11, 809, Surya Kiran Building, C.R.Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg I.P.Estate New Delhi- 110 001 New Delhi-110002 Pan – Aaacf0410C (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation upon same should be one given upon the computers @ 60%. Accordingly the ground is decided in favour of assessee and the ld. AO shall reassess

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation

BTL HOLDING CO. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, ITA No.7429/Del/2019 for A

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-compute the loss or the depreciation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

depreciation” was wrong. For this, counsel also placed reliance on Explanation 3 to Section 147 and a Madras High Court decision in K.R. Venketesan v. Wealth Tax Officer 146 CTR 268. 5. Counsel further contended that initiation of reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – II vs. CO. LTD

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year

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)

reassess such income or re-compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment (or — Rs. 73,604 re-computation) the income (or loss or depreciation allowance) origin ally assessed/determined. 6. Whether the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment (or — Rs. 73,604 re-computation) the income (or loss or depreciation allowance) origin ally assessed/determined. 6. Whether the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(2), GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment (or — Rs. 73,604 re-computation) the income (or loss or depreciation allowance) origin ally assessed/determined. 6. Whether the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD vs. RAJEEV KUMAR ARORA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment (or — Rs. 73,604 re-computation) the income (or loss or depreciation allowance) origin ally assessed/determined. 6. Whether the case

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings and the quantum thereof was absolutely wrong, unjustified & erred both on facts and in law since in para 7 of the Reasons recorded, such disallowance was observed at Rs.72.90 lacs, the additions as made in Asstt. Order was Rs.61,96,000/- whereas due differential depreciation

PURI OIL MILLS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings and the quantum thereof was absolutely wrong, unjustified & erred both on facts and in law since in para 7 of the Reasons recorded, such disallowance was observed at Rs.72.90 lacs, the additions as made in Asstt. Order was Rs.61,96,000/- whereas due differential depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHUSHAN STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2006-07] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-7(1), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2007-08] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Circle-22(2), Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2008-09] S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Vs Add.Cit, 5Th Floor, Plot No.68, Special Range-8, Sector-44, Gurugram, New Delhi Haryana-122003. Pan-Aaacl3128M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025

depreciation claimed besides the issue of prior period which was there in the earlier reasons recorded, based on which proceedings initiated in November 2011. ITA No.1850/Del/2019, 1470 &1122/Del/2020 He submits that from the perusal of the reassessment

Video Electronics Ltd vs. Joint CIT

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act to be unjustified and all consequential deduction like depreciation etc., to be allowable

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

reassessment proceedings had been initiated - refer reply dated 27.10.2009 on main issue and complete disclosures made in respect of other two legal claims; (d) the assessing officer, after due application of mind, agreed with certain claims and also disallowed certain claims in the original assessment order. For example, excess claim of depreciation

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

reassessment proceedings had been initiated - refer reply dated 27.10.2009 on main issue and complete disclosures made in respect of other two legal claims; (d) the assessing officer, after due application of mind, agreed with certain claims and also disallowed certain claims in the original assessment order. For example, excess claim of depreciation

VIRAJ SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-26(4), DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccv5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation