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

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Act and was allowed after application of mind as such the same cannot be the matter for reassessment us 263 of the Act. 7. Learned Authorised Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the issue of transactions with the related parties specified u/s 40A(2

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

reassessment proceeding initiated by the revenue to "verify the transaction entered into by the assessee in Fictitious Losses in Equity/Derivative Trading." (Refer PB page No 86) 4. Your honor, we wish to submit that the time limit to pass the order under Section 263(1) is provided under Section 263(2

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

2(a) to Section 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

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

reassessment proceeding initiated by the revenue to "verify the transaction entered into by the assessee in Fictitious Losses in Equity/Derivative Trading." (Refer PB page No 86) 4. Your honor, we wish to submit that the time limit to pass the order under Section 263(1) is provided under Section 263(2

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2(a) of sub section 1 of Section 263 and set aside the reassessment order to Ld. AO with the direction

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

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

BONJOUR ESTATES (P) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT-1, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided under sub section (2) of section 263 of the Act would begun to run from

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

2,594,060.00\n| 136,530,00\n| 136,530.00\n| Total\n| 6,096,819,670.00\n| 6,096,819,670,00\n| 961,491,242.00\n| 100,054,347.00\n| 5,035,274,081.00\n| 1,061,545,589.00\n| 5,135,328,428.00\n| Previous Year

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 :

263 of the Act Subsequently, the Department went in appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the order passed by Hon’ble ITAT and Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the stand of Hon'ble ITAT and decided the matter in appellant's favour in order dated 17-9-2024. In the meantime, another proceeding under section 153C

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings, accepted the claim of the assessee vide his order dated 21.03.2023. 5. The PCIT, Faridabad found that the AO did not conduct proper enquiry in terms of law laid down by Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court as well law provided in the Act in terms of section 56(2)(viii) r.w. 57(iv) read with section

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2 to section 263 - High court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer has made inquires in details and accepted genuineness of loans receive by assessee, such view of Assessing Officer was a plausible view and same cannot to be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed – Held

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 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

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 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2(a) to 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

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

2) of the Act and that the same remained unverified, is ex\nfacie incorrect and contrary to the records. The records of the concerned\nAO which reflects that all details were duly filed and verified by the AO.\nReliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi\nHigh Court in PCIT v. M/s. Brahma Centre Development