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:

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, 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:

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 46[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the\nmatter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not\nexamined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed\nthe Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.”\n18. This particular aspect of making enquiry on the replies filed by the\nappellant

VED PRAKASH & SONS LIUMBERS PVT LTD,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment afresh by the Ld. AO. 20. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Cliks Finance Pvt. Ltd. [2012] (3) TMI 227 dated 01/03/2024 has held as under:- “19. A bare reading of sub-Section (1) of Section 263

JINDAL POLYBUTTONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the assessee's appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Section 263(1) can, in case of reassessment proceedings, be passed only on issue which are the subject matter of reassessment

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the\nmatter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not\nexamined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed\nthe Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.”\n18. This particular aspect of making enquiry on the replies filed by the\nappellant

JINDAL POLYBUTTONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, both the assessee's appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Section 263(1) can, in case of reassessment proceedings, be passed only on issue which are the subject matter of reassessment

JCIT(OSD), JHANDEWALAN vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljcit (Osd), Jhandewalan, Vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Delhi H.No. 467, Sector-21-A, Fardidabad, Haryana (Pan: Aagpa1441D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv., Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

reassessment process was based on the directions issued by the PCIT in his order under Section 263. The assessment year

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

263 of the Act. 2) Recording of statement without issuing summons under section 131 of the Act. The recording of statements of any person during the course of reassessment

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act, record means 'record [shall include and shall be deemed always to have include) all records relating to any proceedings under this Act available at the time of examination by the (Principal (Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal) Commissioner or] Commissioner:' (ii) That the SCN issued by Ld. PCIT for revision proceeding u/s. 263

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 263(1) of the Act, despite the fact that the\nconditions prescribed therein are not satisfied in the present case.\n\n6.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT\nhas erred both on facts and in Jay in getting aside the order of the\nA.O. without herself giving a finding

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment order under Section 148 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act was passed. Addition was not made for the first reason. In the given facts, the assertion by the Revenue that inquiry and verification in re the bank account was not made is ex-facie incorrect. This being the position, this is not a case of failure

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

263 of the Act, the assessment order is deemed erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of such enquiry/verification. Learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this property is being assessed regularly and assessee is declaring the ALV of this property at ₹1.20 lakhs and even in assessment year

LIBERTY SHOES LTD,LIBERTY PURAM G.T.KARNAL ROAD KUTAIL DISTT KARNAL vs. PCIT ROHTAK HARYANA, DCIT KARNAL HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nThe notice under Section 148 of the 1961 Act referred to two reasons.\nThe first reason was with regard to non-declaration of the account in ING\nVysya Bank with a credit of Rs.70,13,43,319/- (Rupees seventy crores\nthirteen lakhs forty three thousand three hundred and nineteen only).\nThe second reason

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. thereby, in respect of DCIT Vs. Ravindra Singh completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AD in absence of Meaning any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. thereby, in respect of DCIT Vs. Ravindra Singh completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AD in absence of Meaning any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. thereby, in respect of DCIT Vs. Ravindra Singh completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AD in absence of Meaning any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments