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

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

4. Ld.AR for the assessee requested that the Ground of Appeal No.9 and the additional ground taken in terms of letter dated 07.05.2025 are inter-connected and inter-related and are purely legal ground and requires no verification of facts and therefore, same be admitted for adjudication. 5. On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue objected

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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

4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be\nmade at any stage 37 of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary\nthe re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or\nAssessing Officers from whom the case is transferred.\nExplanation. —In section 120 and this section, the word \"case

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

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

127 of the Act by any competent authority. In the present case, the ITO, Ward 33(2) had exercised the jurisdiction merely on the basis of intimation given by the ITO, Ward 25(4), and merely on file being transferred by the ITO, Ward 25(4) of his own to the ITO, Ward 33(2). The Hon’ble Delhi High

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

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

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

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5

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

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5

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

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5