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

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

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

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

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

reassessment, cannot seek to review the earlier assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act on account of mere "change of opinion" and or mere review of existing material/ facts. 42. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: CIT v. Foramer France: [2003] 264

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

reassessment, cannot seek to review the earlier assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act on account of mere "change of opinion" and or mere review of existing material/ facts. 42. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: CIT v. Foramer France: [2003] 264

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment issued under section 148 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. It is further respectfully submitted that mere charge that the expenses claimed is bogus is not sufficient to justify the fulfillment of condition set out in first proviso to section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODERATE CREDIT CORPORATION PVT. LTD., WEST BENGAL

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

264 of the Act. Therefore, any finding in the annulled orders passed under section 153C of the Act, in these cases, had no relevance. 6.2 The Ld. CIT-DR, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. 236 ITR 34, drew our attention to the ratio laid down

ACIT CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI vs. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order under Section 147 of the Act is in controversy. 10.2 Before we proceed to deal with the jurisdictional aspects, it will be pertinent to reproduce the reasons recorded under S. 148(2) of the Act in contemplation as extracted in the 8 ITAs No.1299/Del/2020 & 1413/Del/2020 assessment order. “It has come to the notice of the undersigned from

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order under Section 147 of the Act is in controversy. 10.2 Before we proceed to deal with the jurisdictional aspects, it will be pertinent to reproduce the reasons recorded under S. 148(2) of the Act in contemplation as extracted in the 8 ITAs No.1299/Del/2020 & 1413/Del/2020 assessment order. “It has come to the notice of the undersigned from

PAMELA BHARDWAJ,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD- 3, KARNAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2) has not expired and held in favour of the assessee following the judgment passed in the matter of CIT Vs. K.M. Pachayappan, reported in (2008) 304 ITR 264 (Mad) wherein the Court has been pleased to hold that no reassessment