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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

reassessment proceedings to tax same under section 68 deserved to be quashed” On the above issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. reported at [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) has held as under: "Where assessee had taken unsecured loan from two companies and had submitted

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

reassessment proceedings to tax same under section 68 deserved to be quashed” On the above issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bairagra Builders (P.) Ltd. reported at [2024] 164 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) has held as under: "Where assessee had taken unsecured loan from two companies and had submitted

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

145 To summarize, in view of the above, it is submitted that the AO rightly accepted returned loss at INR 2,91,00,11,321 and thus, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: (a) complete disclosures were made by the appellant and were a matter of record; (b) pointed

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

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

2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply: (b)the Assessing Officer, on determination of the 22 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

145(2):- (1) Reply dated 02.09.2024 having reply and detailed working as per ICDS and A8-7 [P.B. Page No. 367 to 369). (ii) Reply dated 05.03.2025 having reply and detailed working as per ICDS and AS-7 | P.B. Page No. 422 to 4241. E. The Ld. A.O. discussed and conduct enquiry on the issue & was satisfied specifically

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

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

2 and 3." 41. From perusal of all the judgments it has been consistently held rather a settled law that the action of revenue authorities cannot be held justified if they substitute another method of accounting on the assessee which in the instant case was imposing of percentage completion method on the assessee even when it has been consistently maintaining

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

2 and 3." 41. From perusal of all the judgments it has been consistently held rather a settled law that the action of revenue authorities cannot be held justified if they substitute another method of accounting on the assessee which in the instant case was imposing of percentage completion method on the assessee even when it has been consistently maintaining