COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

127 of the Act both pre-amendment and post-amendment i.e. w.e.f 1.4.1988. 31. Pre-Amendment Section 120 reads: “120. Jurisdiction of Directors of Inspection.--Directors of Inspection shall perform such functions of any other Income-tax authority as may be assigned to them by the Board.” Post-Amendment Section 120 reads: ―120. (1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise

VISHAN GUNNA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Vishan Gunna, Vs Acit, Plot No.550, House No.- Circle-Int.Tex 1(3)(1), 8-3-293/83/J-Iii, Road New Delhi. No.92, Jubilee Hills, Telangana-500033. Pan-Bmypg5434R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.Mohan Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,HISAR vs. JCIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] (15) For the purposes of this section,- (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Reassessment order can he by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to ,Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued, under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

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

Section 127" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether the disallowance of the cost of improvement was justified

ITO, WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALMAK FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri Prashant Maharishi

Reassessment was also held to be invalid for the reason that the jurisdiction over assessee's case was not transferred by any order passed under section 127

M/S. OMEGA BIOTECH LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri B.R.R.Kumar

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 sub-section (2) of section 148." 5.7 It is thus clear that

DESIGNARCH INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

127(1) and for failure of its communication to assessee for transferring of jurisdiction from DCIT, Circle-7(1) New Delhi to ITO Ward-7(1) New Delhi, the assumption of jurisdiction by ITO Ward-7(1) is illegal and unsustainable, making all proceedings including impugned asstt. order is without jurisdiction, null and void, illegal and unsustainable. 2. That under

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C cannot per se be regarded as incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer; That the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction, and therefore deserves to be quashed. Initiation of Proceedings barred by limitation - 'Cash Credit' is not asset 2. That

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C cannot per se be regarded as incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer; That the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction, and therefore deserves to be quashed. Initiation of Proceedings barred by limitation - 'Cash Credit' is not asset 2. That

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C cannot per se be regarded as incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer; That the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction, and therefore deserves to be quashed. Initiation of Proceedings barred by limitation - 'Cash Credit' is not asset 2. That

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C cannot per se be regarded as incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer; That the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction, and therefore deserves to be quashed. Initiation of Proceedings barred by limitation - 'Cash Credit' is not asset 2. That

JSP PROJECTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 13, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA number 3646/Del/2025 and

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C cannot per se be regarded as incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer; That the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction, and therefore deserves to be quashed. Initiation of Proceedings barred by limitation - 'Cash Credit' is not asset 2. That

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 which is special mechanism for bringing to tax the income discovered in consequence of a search. Although Sec.148 (inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021) does not begin with a non- obstante clause similar to the erstwhile section 153A, its context and Explanation- 2 makes it clear that where a search is initiated, the jurisdiction thereafter must flow through

PRAKHAR DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Us & Prayed That Additional

127 dated 19.02.2021, this office received the assessment records in 7 volumes for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2017- 18 along with the Transfer Memo dated 19.02.2021 (enclosed herewith). Upon perusal of the records received from DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Kanpur, it is noticed that earlier also a search action u/s 132 of IT Act was conducted on 13.07.2016 by Investigation Unit

WACHOVIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

reassessment proceedings initiated to be contrary to law and void ab initio and therefore required to be set aside. He thereafter pointed to the observation of CIT(A) at para 6.2 of the order wherein he had noted that the incriminating material was found during the course of search. He submitted that since the incriminating material was found during

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , UTTAR PRADESH vs. MIRHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD., DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed and both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 873/Del/2022 2012-13 Dcit M/S. Mirha Exports Pvt.Ltd. (Revenue’S Appeal) Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Ghaziabad Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P 2. 655/Del/2022 2012-13 M/S. Mirha Exports Dcit (Assessee’S Appeal) Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Ghaziabad Bengali Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P 3. 1233/Del/2022 2013-14 Dcit M/S. Mirha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Revenue’S Appeal) Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Ghaziabad Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P 4. 656/Del/2022 2013-14 M/S. Mirha Exports Dcit (Assessee’S Appeal) Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle Ghaziabad 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P 5. 1234/Del/2022 2015-16 Dcit M/S. Mirha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Revenue’S Appeal) Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Ghaziabad Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P 6. 657/Del/2022 2015-16 M/S. Mirha Exports Dcit Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee’S Appeal) Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Ghaziabad Bengali Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P M/S. Mirha Exports Pvt. Ltd. 7. 874/Del/2022 2016-17 Dcit (Revenue’S Appeal) Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Ghaziabad Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P 8. 658/Del/2022 2016-17 M/S. Mirha Exports Dcit Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee’S Appeal) Central Circle Ghaziabad 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P M/S. Mirha Exports Pvt. Ltd. 9. 875/Del/2022 2017-18 Dcit (Revenue’S Appeal) Central Circle 30, Bazar Lane, Bengali Ghaziabad Market, Central Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaacm8612P

section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, unsustainable in law and ITA No.873 & 655/Del/2022 & Others consequently the impugned reassessment