BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer 47[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

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 or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254

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 or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254

ARUN DUGGAL,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Arun Duggal, Vs Dcit, 3E-42, Nit, Faridabad, Central Circle-1, Haryana-121001. Faridabad. Pan-Agupd5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Gurgaon [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.617/Cit(A)-3/Ggn/2016-17 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Heard By The Co-Ordinate “E” Bench Of The Tribunal & Was Decided In Terms Of Order Dated 01.04.2022 Wherein Co-Ordinate Bench Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) Bearing No.100/Del/2022 U/S 254(2) Of The Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Its Order Dated 09.04.2025 Has Decided The M.A. Filed By Assessee Wherein Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Dated 04.01.2022 Is Recalled For The Limited Purposes Of Adjudication Of Three Grounds Of Appeal Taken In The Original Form 36. These Grounds Of Appeal Are Bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The Relevant Observations Of The Co-Ordinate Bench In Para 16 Of The Order Of Ma Are As Under:-

254(2) of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 09.04.2025 has decided the M.A. filed by assessee wherein order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 04.01.2022 is recalled for the limited purposes of adjudication of three grounds of appeal taken in the original Form 36. These Grounds of appeal are bearing Nos.1.2, 1.8 & 5. The relevant observations

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

section 254 (1) of the Act, gives power to the Appellate Tribunal to pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, implies that the tribunal would confine itself to the subject matter of appeal only. Under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, an appellant can, by leave of the Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of any ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. FARIDABAD PRESSWELL PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2801/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. 24, Ashoka Chamber, 5B, Central Circle-25, Room No.317, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaacfs815B Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

254 to deal with that question and decide the same in accordance with law…." It is very clear that the pleadings of the respondent under Rule 27 cannot be said to be outside the scope of Tribunal on matters to be heard. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Principal Commission of Income Tax,Vadodara

AASHIYANA INFRATEC P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

AASHIYANA INFRATEC P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

AASHIYANA INFRATEC P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

AASHIYANA INFRATEC P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. We fail to see why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings although not raised earlier

DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI vs. PLANETCAST TECHNOLOGIES LTD (FORMELY KNOWN AS ESSEL SHYAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD.), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment or re-computation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ,UTTARPRADESH vs. CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

254 of the Act and the AO accordingly took the view that no addition is called for. 13. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT has erred in not appreciating the case of the Assessee. The evidences/documents/material filed and placed on record has not been judiciously interpreted and considered/appreciated

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver

PARAG DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

254 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act that the assessee has declined to co-operate with the AO in the second round of assessment proceedings initiated at the instance of the ITAT order. No verification report could be received by the AO as contemplated in ITAT order owing to failure of the Assessee to provide Waiver