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

reassess the Income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under subsection (2) of section 148." 5.1.2 Hence, considering the above legal provisions before initiating action

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

reassessment action itself having been validly initiated. 32. Explanation 3, cannot consequently be read as enabling the AO to attempt to either deviate from the reasons originally recorded for initiating action under Section 147/148 of the Act nor can those Explanations be read as empowering the AO to improve upon, supplement or supplant the reasons which formed the bedrock

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

reassessment action itself having been validly initiated. 32. Explanation 3, cannot consequently be read as enabling the AO to attempt to either deviate from the reasons originally recorded for initiating action under Section 147/148 of the Act nor can those Explanations be read as empowering the AO to improve upon, supplement or supplant the reasons which formed the bedrock

INCOME TAX OFFICER, HISAR vs. NEEM CHAND, ADAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Neem Chand, C/O Babu Lal Surender Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-14, Kumar, 112 Anajmandi, Adampurandi Hisar ( Haryana ) Pin: 125 052 Haryana, India Pan :Ahfpc5351C (Appellant) (Respondent)

125 052 Haryana, India PAN :AHFPC5351C (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Shri Lalit Mohan, CA. Assessee by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is against order dated 11.02.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassess the total income of such other person, (the assessee in this case)in the manner provided in section 153A of the Act. So in this case before us, since the AO of the searched person as well as that of the other/third party/assessee foundation are the same, he/AO of assessee can issue notice u/s 153C of the Act only

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

reassessment proceedings on the premise that the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued and the case

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

reassessment proceedings on the premise that the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued and the case

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

reassessment notice as well as the order under section 144/147, and the consequential action, i.e., attachment of the assessee’s accounts are hereby quashed.” 3.6 Reliance here is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: a) 213 Taxation 93 CIT (Del) CIT vs. Mani Kakar b) 296 ITR 333 (Del) CIT vs. Hotline International

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

125 Taxman 963 (SC) wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held thus “5. We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued the proper course of action for the notice is to file return

QUETZAL BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed as indicated above

125 Taxman 963 (SC), and Income Tax\nOfficer (AO), Ward-1(5), Aligarh vs. Rishi Godani [2018]\n97 taxmann.com 135 (Agra-Trib.) and therefore, in such\ncircumstances re-assessment order passed is bad in\nlaw.\nIn the present case, despite of the repetitive requests of\nthe assessee-company, Ld. AO has not provided the\ncopy of the relevant material which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

125/- made by Assessing Officer. 7. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.” 3. The common grounds raised in CO Nos. 358 & 359/Del/2015. In CO No. 358/Del/2015 following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WICKWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed and consequently the appeals of the revenue are liable to be dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

125/- made by Assessing Officer. 7. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.” 3. The common grounds raised in CO Nos. 358 & 359/Del/2015. In CO No. 358/Del/2015 following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

125 Taxman 963/[2003] 259 ITR\n19 (SC)\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the NaFAC has erred\nin upholding the reassessment proceedings without appreciating that the\nvery assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO was based on an incorrect\nreason to believe that the Appellant is a non-PAN case.\n5. On the facts

BEST REALTRECH INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanm/S Best Realtrech Income Tax Officer, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(3), New Delhi H-8, First Floor, Vs. Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan:Aadcb1848D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 147. Therefore, the assessee cannot be said to M/s Best Realtrech (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO have made true and complete disclosure Hence, the notice for reassessment is justified. 38. From a reading of the reasons recorded, it is clear that there is fresh tangible material in the hands of the Assessing Officer with respect to the dubious nature

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions