DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment, despite the fact that the reassessment proceedings initiated and consequent reassessment order passed by AO are bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under Section

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

section 143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. CANARA BANK RELIEF AND WELFARE SOCIETY

reassessment proceedings. 20. As indicated above, to claim the benefit of the provisions of sub- Section (2) of Section 11

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

11. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that neither the provisions of sub-section (1) nor sub-section (2) can be read as giving more than intended operation to the said provision. The provisions, it is argued, do not permit the authorities to renpen assessments, which have become final and reassessment

BEST BULL STOCK TRADING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. M. Balaganesh

11. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that neither the provisions of sub-section (1) nor sub-section (2) can be read as giving more than intended operation to the said provision. The provisions, it is argued, do not permit the authorities to renpen assessments, which have become final and reassessment

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE RADHA KRISHAN CHARITABEL TRUST

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

11 and 12 of the Act being trust of charitable character. However, when the Assessing Officer (AO) was finalizing the income tax return for the Assessment Year 1997-98, he noticed that shares acquired by the trust amounting to `62.50 lacs were not disposed of within the time and they were hit by the provisions of Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE RADHA KRISHAN CHARITABEL TRUST

11 and 12 of the Act being trust of charitable character. However, when the Assessing Officer (AO) was finalizing the income tax return for the Assessment Year 1997-98, he noticed that shares acquired by the trust amounting to `62.50 lacs were not disposed of within the time and they were hit by the provisions of Section

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provide in section 153A”. 11. On going

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provide in section 153A”. 11. On going

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provide in section 153A”. 11. On going

CHIRAG KIRPAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

section 148 of the Act dated 29-3-2023 by the Learned JAO is hereby quashed and hence the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer has been invalidly made which vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. The reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 10. Since the entire reassessment

TAYAL SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HISAR vs. DCIT, HISAR

The Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3323/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Tayal Sons Private Vs Dcit Limited Income Tax Office, Sesctor14, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Ita No. 3467/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Dcit Vs Tayal Sons Private Limited Income Tax Office, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Sesctor14, Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ishitafarsiya, Adv, Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv& Ms. Sakshirustagi. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Two

section 148 of the Act dated 29-3-2023 by the Learned JAO is hereby quashed and hence the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer has been invalidly made which vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. The reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 10. Since the entire reassessment