BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

reassessment and the assessment order passed by him was treated to be invalid. This judgment was followed and discussed by various Benches of ITAT and the High Court in the following judgements: 108 TTJ(Asr)I, 108 ITD (Agra)115, 239

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2) of the Act, is fatal to the order of reassessment.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2) of the Act, is fatal to the order of reassessment.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

VIRAJ SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-26(4), DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Viraj Software Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-26(4), 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaccv5229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr

reassessment and the assessment order passed by him was treated to be invalid. This judgment was followed and discussed by various Benches of ITAT and the High Court in the following judgements: 108 TTJ(Asr)I, 108 ITD(Agra)115, 239

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 27.03.2024. The AO added Rs. 19,15,269/- to the appellant's income under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the nature and source of these credits, alleged to be donations. The AO further noted non-compliance with Section 13A, which governs tax exemptions

V.L JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be erroneous. The assessee also submitted the details of cash deposit in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee also submitted the copy of the cash book before the assessing officer. Thus

M/S JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

239 CTR-216 (Del)] 37. Per contra, the ld DR argued that in the present case for the aforesaid AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12, no fresh claim or additional deduction or exemption can be made other than by way of filing revised return u/s 139(5) and relied on the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

239 CTR-216 (Del)] 37. Per contra, the ld DR argued that in the present case for the aforesaid AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12, no fresh claim or additional deduction or exemption can be made other than by way of filing revised return u/s 139(5) and relied on the decision of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

239 CTR-216 (Del)]\n37. Per contra, the ld DR argued that in the present case for the\naforesaid AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12, no fresh claim or additional\ndeduction or exemption can be made other than by way of filing\nrevised return u/s 139(5) and relied on the decision of Goetze (India)\nLtd. vs. Commissioner of Income

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

239 CTR-216 (Del)]\n\n37. Per contra, the ld DR argued that in the present case for the\naforesaid AYs 2006-07 to 2011-12, no fresh claim or additional\ndeduction or exemption can be made other than by way of filing\nrevised return u/s 139(5) and relied on the decision of Goetze (India)\nLtd. vs. Commissioner