M/S GINNI GOLDLIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income-tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the appellate authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment ; under clause

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,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

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

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

PARVEEN GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

251 ITR 864 (Del.). 16 ITA.Nos.1265 & 1266/Del./2019 Shri Parveen Garg, New Delhi. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that the A.O. considered the issue of unexplained cash deposits in the Bank accounts of the assessee and without any justification determined the income by estimating on account of commission earned despite no evidence of source

PARVEEN GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

251 ITR 864 (Del.). 16 ITA.Nos.1265 & 1266/Del./2019 Shri Parveen Garg, New Delhi. 7. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that the A.O. considered the issue of unexplained cash deposits in the Bank accounts of the assessee and without any justification determined the income by estimating on account of commission earned despite no evidence of source

AKASAKI TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: It, When Jurisdictional Issues Stood Raised & Had Not Been Adjudicated?”

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is not mandatory. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we note the ITAT in the impugned order has in paragraph no.7 stated as under:- “7. From examination of record in the light of light of aforesaid

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-2, M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacb0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

251 and 153 of the Act, it becomes abundantly clear that if an assessment is set aside by the appellate authority, the extended time-limit is available for making a fresh assessment in pursuance of the direction of the appellate authority, but in the case of annulment, no such extended time is available." It may be mentioned that when

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

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

reassessment proceedings has to be governed by the provisions of section 147 to 151 as substituted (amended) w.e.f. 01/04/1989. Still, power u/s 147 of the Act, though very wide but no plenary. We are aware that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Praful Chunilal Patel: Vasant Chunilal Patel vs ACIT (1999) 236 ITR 82, 840 (Guj.) even went

M/S VEENA ENTERPRISES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 2517/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 81, Vigyan Vihar, Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3918K Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, Fca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca & Sh. Udit Naresh, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi.

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. There is nothing in the record/submission of the assessee that what prevented him from furnishing the evidence now furnished. Reasons are not there as to what prevented the assessee from filing the present evidence now instead of at time of assessment. In this regard, it is submitted that the bills submitted

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result both the appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2009-10 & Ay: 2010-11

section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject- matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result both the appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2009-10 & Ay: 2010-11

section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject- matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment

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