INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

reassessment order was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) as in the case of the present assessee. 8. In view of the above discussion, I therefore, dismiss the additional ground no.3 of the appeal of the assessee and hold that the reopening notice dated 28.03.2019 and the assessment order dated 25.11.2019 are valid in this case on the basis

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

8. The assessee raised strong objections against the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In its objections, the assessee strongly agitated that it had not received any of the impugned amount during the year under consideration from the persons alleged by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. It was brought

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

8. Per-contra ld. CIT-DR submitted that if the assessee is having grievance that ld. CIT(A) has not provided the opportunity of being heard, the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after considering the written submissions of the assessee. BSES Rajdhani Power

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

8. Per-contra ld. CIT-DR submitted that if the assessee is having grievance that ld. CIT(A) has not provided the opportunity of being heard, the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after considering the written submissions of the assessee. BSES Rajdhani Power

UJJWAL MICROFINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

255 ITR 2201dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with the claim of depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

255 ITR 2201dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with the claim of depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench

GOLDEN JOB FINDER P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-11(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary

8. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has drawn support from Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act which was inserted by the Finance [No. 2] Act, 2009 w.r.e. 01.04.1989 and the same reads as under: “For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect

DCIT, CC-06, NEW DELHI vs. NAVEEN INFRADEVELOPERS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

255 ITR 2201dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with the claim of depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench

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

INTERGLOBAL STEELS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

255 ITR 2201dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with the claim of depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

8 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held that where while disposing of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer after examining reply filed by assessee concluded that establishment of assessee was an export oriented unit and, thus, entitled for exemption under section 10B, subsequent notice under section 147 on ground that assessee was not entitled for said deduction was mere change

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

8 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held that where while disposing of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer after examining reply filed by assessee concluded that establishment of assessee was an export oriented unit and, thus, entitled for exemption under section 10B, subsequent notice under section 147 on ground that assessee was not entitled for said deduction was mere change

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

8 (Bom), the Bombay High Court held that where while disposing of scrutiny proceedings, the assessing officer after examining reply filed by assessee concluded that establishment of assessee was an export oriented unit and, thus, entitled for exemption under section 10B, subsequent notice under section 147 on ground that assessee was not entitled for said deduction was mere change

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANGEETA MISHRA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

8 of 28 decision of the J.M. to hold that the matter required verification and re-adjudication on the part of the AO was the correct one. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the view of the V.P. to hold that the addition of Rs. 28,76,000 made by the AO towards

RENU JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, , NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Om Prakash Tantia, Vs. Dcit Plot No. 165-167, Sector-25, Central Circle – 25 Ballabgarh, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Abspt8332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nisha Jain Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Acspj6903H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Tantia Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Aafpt4583L (Appellant) (Respondent)

8. In the case of PCIT v M/s VSL Mining Company Pvt Ltd the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has framed the substantial question of law: “2. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the assessee belongs to the Lad group of companies and is engaged in the business of extraction and trading of iron

DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision

VANSHIKA MOTORS (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 8. provision