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

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 invalid BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT 50. Under the scheme of the Act, the assessing officer can initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act only if he has "reason to believe" that any income has escaped assessment. Such belief has to be arrived at by the assessing officer on the basis of tangible/ reliable information

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

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 invalid BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT 50. Under the scheme of the Act, the assessing officer can initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act only if he has "reason to believe" that any income has escaped assessment. Such belief has to be arrived at by the assessing officer on the basis of tangible/ reliable information

ITO, WARD-52(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARTI JINDAL , DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassess such income other than the income involving the matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. When the subject matter viz. the receipt of transfer of rights in land and the income relatable to such matter was the subject matter of appeal and thereafter second appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 205(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Depreciation for the year 1647417/- , 894275/- Unabsorbed depreciation carried 81,56,588/- 65,09,171/- Forward 4.6 The requirement of disclosure on failure to provide for depreciation, in the profit and loss account, as also, the quantum of such arrears, flows from Section 211, read with, clause 3(iv) of Part

KISAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING FZE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

section 251 of the Act, and the matter is referred back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment, in accordance with law.” 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of AO in assuming

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

BEST CITY PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

reassessment had been done then there would not have been any need to mention the right of the assessee to file appeal before the CIT (A). If the view of the AO is to be seen as correct then no appeal would be maintainable before the CIT (A) and the assessee would have to take alternative remedy

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

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

251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

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

251 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Mahavir Crimpers, 95 Taxman.com 323 (Guj) have held that when the Department has accepted the factum of repayment, the additions under Section 68 is not sustainable in law. Similar view has been expressed in CIT Vs. Karaj Singh (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 70 (P&H) &Panna Devi Chowdhary

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2089/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Naveen Tyagi Ito C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Vs. Ward 1(2), Associates, 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Admpt7873K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment order on the ground that mandatory notice u/s 148 was not served upon the assessee much less when the same was issued on incorrect address and thus, impugned proceeding is nullity in the eyes of law more so without following the principles laid down in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, Supreme

AKN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC- 26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

251/- which is same as was declared in the original return filed under Section 139 of the Act by the assessee. 3. Thereafter notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.08.2015 followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire to the assessee. The assessee was served upon the assessment order

AKN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC- 26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals preferred by the assessee on this common ground are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roy

251/- which is same as was declared in the original return filed under Section 139 of the Act by the assessee. 3. Thereafter notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.08.2015 followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire to the assessee. The assessee was served upon the assessment order