NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

MIKADO REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 147 of the Act can be challenged. 19. We are, therefore, convinced with this argument of the Ld. AR and hold that the assessment order is barred by limitation, the assessee can challenge the validity of the same during this appellate proceedings relating to the examination of the validity of the order passed under section 263

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order and the prejudices

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

reassessment order would have to be quashed and consequently, the order u/s 263 seeking to revise the reassessment order would

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

263 of the Act on 30.03.2019 and the impugned order which was revised was passed u/s 147 of the act on 30.12.2016. He submitted that reassessment

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

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

revised on 18.10.2010 of Rs. 3246648940/-. Subsequently, assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 02.052014 determining total income of Rs. 7293012330/-. Thereafter , action u/s 263 of the Act was taken and the order passed by the ld AO was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Subsequently, the order u/s 263 was passed

SATYA NARAIN PRAKASH PUNJ,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2006-07

reassessment proceeding u/s. 153A, in respect of assessment which has not abated, the AO cannot tinker with the assessment without there being any incriminating material. When the AO cannot tinker with the original assessment in the absence of any incriminating material, the Ld. CIT cannot do in the revision proceeding u/s. 263

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