LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

189 (Del.) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del) - CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd: 340 (TR 66 (Bom.) - Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: ITA No. 2205/Del/2015 (Del. Trib.) Re (i): No sanction under section 151 of the Act provided during assessment proceedings 39. It is respectfully submitted that though the notice under section 148 refers

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

RAJEEV BEHL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2013-14

reassessment proceedings have been initiated without obtaining the approval as per the provisions of section 151(1) of the Act. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in upholding the validity of proceedings u/s 147 read with section 148 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the reasons recorded for issue

SUPERBRANDS LTD (UK),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.332/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Superbrands Ltd. (Uk) Dcit C/O Bdo India Llp 1501-1508, Vs. Circle 3(1)(2), Palm Spring Plaza, Sector-54, International Taxation, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana. Pan No. Aaics6497G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

189 ITD 678. The relevant findings read as under: "8. Provision of section 144C( 1) read as under:- "144C. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order of I.T.A.No.332/Del/2021 assessment (hereafter in this section referred to as the draft order

REETA RANA,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-3, SAHRANPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2010-11

189 ITR 285, wherein the provisions of section 147(b) of the Act as they stood before 01.04.1989 were being examined. That case was predominantly concerned with the question as to what would constitute ―informationǁ within the meaning of section 147(b). It was held that the statute does not require that the ITA 2026/2010 (FB) Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. XEROX MODICORP LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed

3) for all the assessment years. Therefore, the action of the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings was only on the basis of mere change of opinion. Such course of action is not permission under law. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. XEROX MODICORP LIMITED

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

3) for all the assessment years. Therefore, the action of the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings was only on the basis of mere change of opinion. Such course of action is not permission under law. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jindal Photo Films

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEASLTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) of the Act.... 14. He also refuted the contention of the assessee's counsel that the Assessing Officer himself allowed time of lapse for  issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and, therefore, it was not permissible for him to take advantage of the same for enlarging the time for assessment by issuing notice under

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

3) of the Act…. 14. He also refuted the contention of the assessee‟s counsel that the Assessing Officer himself allowed time of lapse for 2011:DHC:5843-DB ITA No. 685/2009 & 686/2009 Page 17 of 21 issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act and, therefore, it was not permissible for him to take advantage

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments or unabated assessments, meaning thereby, in respect of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any incriminating material having been found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act. Court