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 or section 264

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1-A), (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 or section 264

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1-A), (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 or section 264

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1), (1-A), (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 or section 264

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1), in a case

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 264

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 264

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.:

reassessments. 153. [(1) ............................................................................................................. [(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) [, (1A), (1B)] and (2), in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 263 or section 264

HARISH KUMAR,DELHI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

reassessment with a new regime. The first provisio to section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, Section 3 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI vs. HARISH KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

reassessment with a new regime. The first provisio to section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, Section 3 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including sections

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assesses or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. PRIDE RESIDENCY (P) LTD. (IN THE CASE OF SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDS. P.LTD.), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

264 of the Act,quashing the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Act holding that the Assessing Officer had committed an error inasmuch as had passed an order in the name of a non-existent company, and therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to reassess

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PEGASUS SOFTECH PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disposed of by Order dated 12th March 2012 for the A.Y. 2002-2003 to A.Y. 2008-2009 and matter was restored back to the A.O. with direction to decide the matter 12 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. as per Law. The A.O, in pursuance