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

207 63,02,797 10.63 iii) 2016-17 6,82,10,408 6,26,08,382 72,71,655 10.55

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

207 63,02,797 10.63 iii) 2016-17 6,82,10,408 6,26,08,382 72,71,655 10.55

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

207 63,02,797 10.63 iii) 2016-17 6,82,10,408 6,26,08,382 72,71,655 10.55

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

207 63,02,797 10.63 iii) 2016-17 6,82,10,408 6,26,08,382 72,71,655 10.55

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case under

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case under

Smt. Meera Kapoor vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

Section 148 of the Act. The reason was that the notice was issued to the Appellant by an officer who did not have any jurisdiction, in her case. Thus, it is submitted by the appellant that the notice issued by ACIT, Circle 30(1) and the consequential assessment is illegal and bad in law. 6. The assessee relied

ACIT, CC- 15, NEW DELHI vs. SALONI NARANG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Saloni Narang, Tax, Central Circle-15, 5, Dr. G.G. Narang Marg, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Vs Cavalary Lane, Centre, Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aafpn2692C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

207 (Delhi), had an occasion to deal with an identical situation and held that even dehors Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963,it is open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise new grounds in defense of the order appealed against ,noting that the Tribunal has inherent powers

BONJOUR ESTATES (P) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT-1, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

207 (Kerala) 8. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 418 (Allahabad) Page 5 of 21 9. Louis Berger Group Inc. Vs. Asst. Director of Income tax (International Taxation), Hyderabad [2014] 51 taxmann.com 121 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 6. Drawing our attention towards judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. FORMULA ONE MARKETING II LIMITED, UNITED KINGDOM

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

207 and 208 of the Act. The provisions of Section 209 and 210 of the Act specify the ITA No.- 5092/Del/2024 Formula One Marke"ng II Limited computation mechanism and payment milestones of advance tax respectively. For the purpose of present appeal, the provisions of Section 209 of the Act are relevant to be considered, which provide that in order

SH. MDLR HOTELS P. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the Revenue are

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment orders had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings. Hence the Impugned Order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. a. The ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact the Appellant was a foreign company which was already wound up on 05.06.2021, and the re- assessment initiated vide notice dated 31.03.2021 (intimated to the Assessee by email only on June

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings. Hence the Impugned Order passed is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. a. The ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact the Appellant was a foreign company which was already wound up on 05.06.2021, and the re- assessment initiated vide notice dated 31.03.2021 (intimated to the Assessee by email only on June

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service. The requirement of issue of notice is satisfied when a notice is actually issued. In this case, admittedly, the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation as March 31, 1970, was the last day of that period. Service under

MARVELOUS CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

reassessment proceedings and accordingly the notice issued under section 148 of the Act as being bad in law. 2. That the order dated 22.07.2024 passed u/s 250 of the "Act" by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

VINOD KOHLI,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No.896/Del/2021\N(Assessment Year: 2012-13)\N\Nsmt. Vinod Kohli,\Nc.W. – 66, Malibu Town,\Nsohna Road,\Ngurugram – 122 018 (Haryana).\N(Pan : Amipk8299D)\N(Appellant)\N\Nvs.\N\Nacit, Circle 35 (1),\Nnew Delhi.\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocate\Nrevenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing : 13.03.2025\Ndate Of Order : 21.05.2025\N\Norder\N\N1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-\N\N\"1. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Based On Incorrect Assumptions, Conjectures & Surmises.\N\N2. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment In The Captioned Matter Is Invalid Because -\N\N2.

reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12 could have been taken unless the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment for a reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.\n\n16. It is a settled law that the reasons which are recorded

SUSHEN MOHAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -15 , DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

207 of the Paper Book. vii. That the reimbursement was not incriminating in nature is further established by the fact that in the hands of the company, M/s Indian Avitronics and in the hands of Mr. R.P. Kashyap, no addition has been made. The Ld. AR placed on record the assessment orders framed in the hands

SUSHEN MOHAN GUPTA ,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, DELHI , DELHI

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

207 of the Paper Book. vii. That the reimbursement was not incriminating in nature is further established by the fact that in the hands of the company, M/s Indian Avitronics and in the hands of Mr. R.P. Kashyap, no addition has been made. The Ld. AR placed on record the assessment orders framed in the hands