COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. CHETAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed but, in the facts and circumstances of the

282 (1) and Section 153 (2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the reassessment. (iv) The onus

M/S PRINT-FAB (INDIA) P. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 M/S. Print-Fab (India) P. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Ltd., 46/8, 1St Floor, East 14(4), New Delhi Patel Nagar, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaccp7299M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 12/08/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2003-04, Raising Following Grounds, Which Are Revised On 22.02.2016: 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, New Delhi [Briefly "The Cit(A)"] Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Briefly "The Act"). 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Was Not Validly Reopened, For No Valid Notice

reassessment proceedings in absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act are invalid. In the judgment of CIT Vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti (supra), the Revenue challenged the findings of the Tribunal that the assessment order in question having been passed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act was invalid. In that case notice under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KUBER TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT LTD

The appeal stands disposed of

282, 283 and 284 of the Income Tax Act, read with General Clauses Act. Instances have come to the notice of the  Department, where notice under sub section (2) of sec.143, though issued by registered post within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished, have been held "invalid" on the ground that

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Reassessment order can he by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to ,Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued, under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment or re-computation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the 'second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished

M/S RAJIT SYNTEX PVT. LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri L.P. Sahuay: 2004-05 Rajit Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 430, Sector 28, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. Noida, Up-201 301 (Pan: Aaccr0963N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, Sr.Dr

282 CTR 435 (Del). He submitted that in view of the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court’s judgment, the entire proceedings ought to be quashed. 4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that a mere technical default, if at all, cannot vitiate the entire reassessment proceedings and submitted that on merits, the Department has a very strong

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

282 (Del), the position was clarified by the Court and it was held: “It will have to be kept in mind that Section 68 of the I.T. Act only sets up a presumption against the Assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of accounts of the Assessee. It cannot but be gainsaid that the presumption

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act." 13 Krishna Kumar Makrania 13. Under these facts, the said Court observed that

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

282 (SC) i. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC ) ii. Delhi iii. CIT vs Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 HC (Punjab and Haryana) 18 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

282 (SC) i. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC ) ii. Delhi iii. CIT vs Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 HC (Punjab and Haryana) 18 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto

M/S. ART BEAUTY EXPORT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

282 (SC) i. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC ) ii. Delhi iii. CIT vs Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 HC (Punjab and Haryana) 18 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto

M/S. ARTS BEAUTY EXPORTS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

282 (SC) i. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC ) ii. Delhi iii. CIT vs Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 HC (Punjab and Haryana) 18 I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

282 of the Act, i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961, were not exhaustive and it was permissible to serve notice by way of modes not mentioned in the said section. All that mattered was whether notice was received on behalf of the assessee and was complied with. When no question about validity of service was raised before the Assessing officer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LIMITED

282 of the Act, i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961, were not exhaustive and it was permissible to serve notice by way of modes not mentioned in the said section. All that mattered was whether notice was received on behalf of the assessee and was complied with. When no question about validity of service was raised before the Assessing officer

SH. SUKHPAL CHOWDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra(Through Video Conferencing)

2) was required to be sent to E-914 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and not at the address 1417/3 Gali No. 7 Rajiv Nagar Gurgoan. The correct address for the purpose of service of valid notice, which has been emphasized by various courts, is the address which is given in the return of income filed by the assessee, or from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 27 of 46 Section 144-BA. (14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official

SMT. AARTI SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment of the total income of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search took place. To repeat, there is no condition in this Section that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search or other post-search material or information

SMT. SHOBHA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment of the total income of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search took place. To repeat, there is no condition in this Section that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search or other post-search material or information