SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

145 of the Act adopting project completion method to account for the revenue and the revenue authorities have failed to bring forth any inconsistency in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer in the instant case has merely applied the method of percentage completion adopted by the Developer JSM DPL and calculated the income of the assessee completely ignoring

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings, accepted the claim of the assessee vide his order dated 21.03.2023. 5. The PCIT, Faridabad found that the AO did not conduct proper enquiry in terms of law laid down by Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court as well law provided in the Act in terms of section 56(2)(viii) r.w. 57(iv) read with section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. SALUJA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaydcit, Ghaziabad, Vs. Saluja Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 201, First Floor, A-1, Plot No. 1, Delhi Meerut Road, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, New Arya Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Up-201002 Up-201001 (Pan: Aaucs6233L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144 r.w. s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2019. In the said reassessment proceedings, the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 49,00,000/- (Rs.45,00,000 + Rs.4,00,000) was again added by the Assessing Officer, which amounts to double taxation. Since, the above amount of Rs.49,00,000/- was disallowed by Assessing Officer in original assessment

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment u/s 148 qua genuineness of unsecured loan as well as purchases disclosed, considered and accepted during the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10th December 2024 passed by the CIT(A) as well as order dated

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

145/- under section 68 of the Act. 3. Interest under various sections could not have been charged and included in the computation of tax demand. 4. The order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 5. The case file reveals that there is a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

reassessment such provisions already exist u/s 142(1) of 148 of the Act. Thus, it is mandatory for an AO, after recording a satisfaction u/s 153C of the Act, to initiate assessment proceedings, to mandatorily issue a notice u/s 153A of the Act seeking return of income for the particular period and then to proceed to make an assessment only

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Section 250 of\nthe Act, Mr. A. K. Khanna, CA, appeared for the appellant. To\nsubstantiate the grounds of appeal, the appellant has submitted as\nunder:-\n\"In continuation of appeal filed by M/s India Exposition Marts Ltd.\nagainst re-opening of assessment u/s 147 for A.Y 2009-2010. We are\nsubmitting here with the following:\n1)\nAssessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

reassessment proceedings were held invalid.” The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 has also made similar observation. The relevant portion thereof is as under:- There is no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion that the figure "48" is to be read

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

reassessment proceedings were held invalid.” The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 has also made similar observation. The relevant portion thereof is as under:- There is no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion that the figure "48" is to be read

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

reassessment proceedings were held invalid.” The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 has also made similar observation. The relevant portion thereof is as under:- There is no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion that the figure "48" is to be read

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 made under section 147; if no notice was issued or if the notice issued was shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Mysore High Court, the assessment passed in pursuance of an invalid

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting