RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 21(1), DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Reassessment order can be by a different Digitally Signed By:MAANAS JAJORIA Signing Date:08.05.2024 15:45:04 Signature Not Verified ITA 124/2020 and connected matters Page 18 of 22 officer)." 20. Sub-section (5) of section 124, though limited in scope, would also be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Income-tax Officer

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

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

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

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

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

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

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s 2

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s 2

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s 2

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s 2

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s 2

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

127; or (d) exercise of jurisdiction in case of change of incumbency as referred to in section 129, so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by— (i) eliminating the interface between the income-tax authority and the assessee or any other person, to the extent technologically feasible; (ii) optimising utilisation of the resources through economies of scale

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

reassessment proceedings for the said assessment years were quashed holding that- a) “there was complete disclosure of all material facts relating to land by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment-years under consideration; b) there