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

6) or sub- section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub- section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

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 the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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 the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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 the 'total income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A

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

6. The appellant, in the High Court, assailed the notices issued under section 148 for reassessment the assessment years 1968- 69 to 1971-72 and for the year 1982-83 on the ground that the proposed reassessment for those assessment years had already become harred by time under section 149 of the Act, for which in the relevant periods maximum

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

6. The appellant, in the High Court, assailed the notices issued under section 148 for reassessment the assessment years 1968- 69 to 1971-72 and for the year 1982-83 on the ground that the proposed reassessment for those assessment years had already become harred by time under section 149 of the Act, for which in the relevant periods maximum

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 148 issued

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 148 issued

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 148 issued

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 148 issued

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 2(14)(b) of the Act which states as follows: "any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor which has invested in such securities in accordance with the regulations made under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), but does not include- ….” 4.4. As stated earlier, Argos was registered as an FPI with SEBI

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 2(14)(b) of the Act which states as follows: "any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor which has invested in such securities in accordance with the regulations made under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), but does not include- ….” 4.4. As stated earlier, Argos was registered as an FPI with SEBI

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

6 of 8 person in receipt of the income, subject to fulfillment of conditions given in the said provision. 18. It is not in dispute that to claim the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 11, the respondent/assessee was required to file a statement in the prescribed format i.e., Form No. 10, as per Rule 17 of the Income

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

6. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner which is being considered as the foremost issue is "whether the impugned order under section 148A (d) as well as the notice under section 148 of the Act could be issued by the local jurisdictional officer, rather than the faceless assessment." The issue in other words was "whether was it not mandatory

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

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

DCIT, HISAR vs. TAYAL SONS PVT. LTD., 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR vs. M/S. TAYAL SONS PVT. LTD., 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