MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassess by invoking provision of section 147 inasmuch as there is no application 15 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 of mind by the Ld. AO while recording of reasons, rendering assumption of jurisdiction as bad in law. He submitted that the observations of Ld. CIT(A) while disposing off the appeal of M/s SGS were not binding upon the Assessing

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 263 of the Act. 45 173 In fact, it is pertinent to note that section 263 nowhere refers to an assessment order passed by the NaFAC under section 144B of the Faceless Assessment Scheme to be subjected to revisionary jurisdiction. It only confers revisionary jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the ‘Assessing Officer’ or the ‘Transfer Pricing Officer

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

reassessment proceedings on the premise that the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued and the case

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

reassessment proceedings on the premise that the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued and the case

UMAR DARAJ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Umar Daraj, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(4), 153/1, Hapur Road, Meerut. Umar Nagar, Meerut – 250 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ainpd8766H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

B. THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS AND ADDITION OF UNDER SECTION 40A(3) IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE SINCE THE AO HAD EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED THE IDENTICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE IN AY 2011–12 SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, AND NO NEW MATERIAL OR CHANGE IN FACTS/LAW EXISTS — REASSESSMENT IS THUS A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BARRED BY SUPREME COURT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

40A(2) clause (b) is a provision for computing arm‘s length price in case of two related parties as defined and applies even when the conditions stipulated in Section 37(1) of the Act are satisfied. The said provision relates to reasonability of the quantum. Similarly, Chapter X of the Act relates to arm‘s length pricing adjustment. Chapter

M/S. KEC- SIDHARTHA (J.V.),GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2012-13 Kec – Sidhartha (J.V.), Ito, Ward- 11(2), 8Th Floor, Building No.9A, Gurgaon. Vs. Dlf Cyber City, Phase- 3, Gurgaon. Pan : Aabak 1448 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment has been made. 3. Because the learned CIT has failed to appreciate the provision of section 5 with section 28 of the Income Tax Act which says that the profit and gain should be taxed to the assessee that arises from the business "carried on by the assessee". The word carried on by the assessee draws the legislative intent

VED PRAKASH & SONS LIUMBERS PVT LTD,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3) of the Act and was allowed after application of mind as such the same cannot be the matter for reassessment us 263 of the Act. 7. Learned Authorised Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the issue of transactions with the related parties specified u/s 40A(2)(b

M/S GINNI GOLDLIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

40A(2)(b) of Rs.3,57,53,276/- which comprises of enhancement of Rs.2,19,63,025/- in respect of purchases made from sister concern and an amount of Rs.1,37,90,251/- being enhancement on account of suppressed sale to the sister concern. 17. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the learned

M/S PROSPEROUS BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2006-07 Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, 17-B, Mgf House, Delhi-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadcp4389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Pramita Tripathy, Cit Dr

B, MGF House, Delhi-7, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AADCP4389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Smt. Pramita Tripathy, CIT DR O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 01/03/2016 passed under section

M/S. LORD KRISHNA DWELLERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2006-07] & [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

40A(3) of the Act squarely applied. 6. All that we have to consider is as to whether these sale deeds constitute incriminating material to trigger the provisions of section 153A of the Act. There is no dispute that the purchases of land reflected in the seized sale deeds are duly recorded in the regular books of account. There

M/S. LORD KRISHNA DWELLERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2006-07] & [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

40A(3) of the Act squarely applied. 6. All that we have to consider is as to whether these sale deeds constitute incriminating material to trigger the provisions of section 153A of the Act. There is no dispute that the purchases of land reflected in the seized sale deeds are duly recorded in the regular books of account. There

ALTMASH EXPORTS,HAPUR vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment of the firm that any remuneration to any partner is not deductible under Section 40(b), the AO may amend the order of the assessment of the partner with a view to adjusting the income of the partner to the extent of the amount not so deductible. A conspectus of these provisions makes the opinion the ITAT consistent with

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

reassess" to the completed assessment proceedings. (vi) In so far as the pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought

DAAWAT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) & Daawat Foods Ltd., Vs. Acit, Unit No.134, 1St Floor, Central Circle – 19, Rectangle I, New Delhi Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110 017 Pan No. Aaccd 3698 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-Xxxiii, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Ita Nos.4157 & 4158/Del/2013 Daawat Foods Ltd Vs. Acit A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

reassess" to the completed assessment proceedings. (vi) In so far as the pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each assessment year on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

40A(3) only profit element can be added to the income, relied on various case laws provided during reassessment proceedings. 5. Immediately previous AY 2012-13 was also under scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) and trading results are near to immediately previous scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3), relied on various case laws provided during reassessment proceedings for law of consistency

M/S UNITECH LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

40a(ia) of the Act as the entire sum stood paid during the year. 11 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case