VERTEX CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 Vertex Customer Management Dcit, Circle- 26(1), India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. First Floor, Tower A, First India Place, Vs. Mehrauli – Gurgaon Road, Sushant Lok Phase- I, Gurgaon.

Section 292B of 9 the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

SPICE ENFOTAINMENT LTD

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

VISWANATHAN SECURITIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, without there being any application of mind by the learned assessing officer and further his such action was based just on suspicion, surmises and conjectures. I.T.A. No.135/Del/2019 2 2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company’s case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –II vs. M/S MICRON STEELS PVT. LTD

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provision condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid 13 notice was served on the assessee to reassess

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

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

292B of the Act deals with effect mistake, defect or omission in service of notice, summons etc. and states that notice, order, proceedings, etc. will not be invalid on account of any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and effect it is in conformity with and in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Act. The aforesaid section

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

292B of the Act deals with effect mistake, defect or omission in service of notice, summons etc. and states that notice, order, proceedings, etc. will not be invalid on account of any mistake, defect or omission if in substance and effect it is in conformity with and in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Act. The aforesaid section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 292B, must be adjudicated by applying the provision. Secondly, in the said case, the assessment year itself was wrongly mentioned. The Supreme Court in the appeal noticed that the assessee had raised an objection before of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings but there was no reply or clarification by the Assessing Officer. 34. In P.V. Doshi versus

VEDANTA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

VINOD KOHLI,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No.896/Del/2021\N(Assessment Year: 2012-13)\N\Nsmt. Vinod Kohli,\Nc.W. – 66, Malibu Town,\Nsohna Road,\Ngurugram – 122 018 (Haryana).\N(Pan : Amipk8299D)\N(Appellant)\N\Nvs.\N\Nacit, Circle 35 (1),\Nnew Delhi.\N(Respondent)\N\Nassessee By : Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advocate\Nrevenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing : 13.03.2025\Ndate Of Order : 21.05.2025\N\Norder\N\N1. The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 24.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-\N\N\"1. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Based On Incorrect Assumptions, Conjectures & Surmises.\N\N2. That Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reassessment In The Captioned Matter Is Invalid Because -\N\N2.

sections": [ "147", "148", "292B", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act were

TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

Reassessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 without issue of a valid notice under section 143(2) was illegal.” CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view that where the assessing officer is not inclined

TODAY REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

Reassessment order invalid due to want of notice under section 143(2)- -- Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143, 147, 148(1), prov.---- ITO v. R.K. GUPTA [308 ITR 49 (Delhi)Tribu.,” 5.1 As regards to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and the arguments advanced by the Ld. DR regarding bonafide mistake by the AO for wrongly mentioned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-II vs. MICRA INDIA PVT LTD

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provision condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

ITO, WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALMAK FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri Prashant Maharishi

Reassessment was also held to be invalid for the reason that the jurisdiction over assessee's case was not transferred by any order passed under section 127 by any competent authority to the ITO who passed the impugned assessment order. (i) Ranjeet Singh v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 120 TTJ (Delhi) 517 wherein the Tribunal held that notice under section