SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

263 of IT Act to set aside the reassessment order passed u/s 147/144B of IT Act on 1 SUNITA SAINI 10.03.2022 ignoring the fact that the such reassessment order itself in invalid and not sustainable in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision

SARENA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, DELHI-3, DELHI

Accordingly decided in favour of the assessee.\n\n13.\nConsequently the appeals succeed and same are allowed

reassessment proceedings and legality of consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Act dated 28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263

BONJOUR ESTATES (P) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT-1, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

revise reassessment order dated 31.12.2017 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 09.02.2021 has to be held as barred by limitation as the time limit for initiating revisional proceedings u/s. 263

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,MEERUT vs. PCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by appellant/assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhita No. 2627/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No.2628/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Principal Cit, Prop. Mange Lal Prakash Ghaziabad Chand, 45-B Gupta Colony, (Uttar Pradesh) T.P. Nagar, Meerut Pin: 250002 Pan: Aeipj3089E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Agarwal, Ca Department By: Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2025 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar: The Appeals Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Are Against Separate Orders Dated 27.03.2024 Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred As ‘Ld. Pcit’ ) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”) Arising Out Of Separate Assessment Orders, Both Dated 29.03.2022 Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act For Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

u/s 263 of a void assessment order cannot be sustained 4. Ld. AO passed reassessment order on 29.03.2022 within 4 weeks of disposing of objections on 09.03.2022, which is in violation oflaw as per the decision of various higher courts, so as per law the reassessment order is void ab initio and revision

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

263 any incriminating 13 ITA Nos.1354, 1355 & 1357/Del./2020 material has been referred to. Thus, he submitted that the directions given by Pr.CIT are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153A 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR has referred to in various written submissions filed during the course of hearing, however, nowhere he could rebut that

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

263 any incriminating 13 ITA Nos.1354, 1355 & 1357/Del./2020 material has been referred to. Thus, he submitted that the directions given by Pr.CIT are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153A 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR has referred to in various written submissions filed during the course of hearing, however, nowhere he could rebut that

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

263 any incriminating 13 ITA Nos.1354, 1355 & 1357/Del./2020 material has been referred to. Thus, he submitted that the directions given by Pr.CIT are beyond the scope of assessments u/s 153A 11. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR has referred to in various written submissions filed during the course of hearing, however, nowhere he could rebut that

SANJAY SAWHNEY,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

u/s 263 at the instance of the ld. JCIT are invalid. This view of ours is further fortified by the following decisions:- (i) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Ashok kumar Shivpuri v. CIT in ITA No.631 (M) of 2014 dated 07-11-2014, wherein it was held - It has been observed by us that the assessment

HALDIRAM SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit (Central), Village- Kherki Daula, Delhi Delhi-3, Room No. Jaipur Highway Basai Road, 325, 3Rd Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Jhandewalan Extn. Pan-Aaach0061R New Delhi-110055 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv & Ms. Ragani Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 were initiated only for this issue. 4. After considering the submissions filed by assessee in this regard, PCIT vide impugned order dated 31.03.2025 held the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act as erroneous and pre- judicial to the interest of the Revenue and direct the AO to re-frame the assessment after making fresh

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

revised u/s 263 itself was invalid on various legal and factual grounds and thus proceeding initiated Page 2 of 14 ITA No. 3463/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] Sanjay Singh Rana Vs. PCIT u/s 263 against the invalid reassessment

SARENA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR,CIT CENTRE DELHI-3, DELHI

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by\nthe Revenue is dismissed

reassessment proceedings and legality of consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Act dated 28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263

V.L JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

263 that “on perusal of the assessment records and ongoing through the information filed by the assessee in respect of the month wise cash sales during the F.Y. 2016=17, it is seen that the assessee has made cash sales of Rs.32,59,351 in the month of I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 November’2016 till 8th November & Rs.82Q0/- in the month

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST (REGD),FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

reassessment proceedings in following manners:- “It is respectfully submittedthat the fee received from students is credited under various heads, building and amalgamation funds being one of them. It is further submitted that building fund is the amount collected from Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) new admissions and it is spent for the purpose of construction of building. Amalgamation fund

DAFFODILLS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,MEERUT vs. PCIT, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

revised u/s 263 itself was invalid inter alia on various grounds as mentioned below and thus proceedings initiated u/s 263 against the invalid reassessment

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 20, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

reassessment proceedings and legality of consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could have been initiated against the Assessee. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 which is bad in law inter alia for this reason that the reassessment

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under: 5. It is trite that a power which vests exclusively in one authority, can’t be invoked or cause to be invoked by another, either directly or indirectly. Section 263 of the Act confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order, subject

BRIJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MEERUT vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment on 21.06.2018. On this background the basic premise on which the present CIT(E) has acted to order a revision order u/s. 263