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

273. Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. 234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

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:

section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (1) the AD should submit the draft assessment order "well in time" Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and no giving him sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -18 vs. SILVER LINE

Section 142(1) of the Act is in a standard form. 7. For AY 2005-06, the reassessment proceedings were finalised and an assessment order was passed by the AO on 28th December 2011 making an addition of Rs.7,05,600 on account of deduction wrongly made. The taxable income was computed at Rs.2,02,19,273

M/S JYOTI PERSHAD JAGAN NATH vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-X

reassessment notice was issued on 6.3.1987 and the amount was disallowed; penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271 (1) (C) as well as under Section 273

M/S JYOTI PERSHAD JAGAN NATH

reassessment notice was issued on 6.3.1987 and the amount was disallowed; penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271 (1) (C) as well as under Section 273

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. However during such proceedings Smt. Kavitha Aggarwal gave a go bye to her earlier statement and stated that as a matter of fact she paid the advance amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the assessee and further stated that whatever she had stated on earlier occasion was incorrect. Ld. AO, therefore, passed