MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

reassessment. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 86. Now coming to the legal proposition, ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. i. Firstly, the addition has been made by the AO under section 50C which is not applicable

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassessment of the total income of any previous year, of the assessee under the Income-tax Act in accordance with the provisions of section 29 to section 43C or section 57 to section 59 or section 92C of the said Act shall not be included in the total undisclosed foreign income. (3) The income included in the total undisclosed foreign

ANUJ CHAUDHARY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment void.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "144", "148", "151", "139", "69", "143(1)", "143(3)", "50C" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

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

QUETZAL BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed as indicated above

section 50C of the Act. The\nreasons recorded nowhere mentioned this\npossibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored\nthe fact that the sale consideration as per the\nsale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the\nassessee had by filing the return offered his\nshare of such proceeds by way of capital\ngains. In the result, the impugned notice is\nquashed

SONEA DHIR,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-32 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "147", "143(3)", "250", "143(1)", "50C", "148", "151", "142(1)", "148A" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer can make additions on issues beyond the original reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and if not, whether the reassessment

KUNWAR PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

Bench: learned first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

reassessment in accordance with the procedures laid down. On this ground alone, the notice dated 26th March, 2019 has to be set aside. 6. Moreover, Mr. Gandhi submitted that despite repeated requests for copy of the sanction under Section 151 of the Act, the same has not been provided. The averment to that effect in the petition has not even

NARESH KUMAR MORYA,NARELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 61(1), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

reassessment proceedings, the learned AO showcaused the assessee as to why the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 (52,32,960 minus Rs. 49 lakhs) be not treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee gave the entire explanation together with the relevant documents and stated

H B EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

1,45,04,688/-) was made. 4. Thereafter, the case was reassessed u/s 143(3)/147 on 18.12.2018 at income of Rs. 3,58,66,970/- after recalculating the capital gain taking the full value of sale consideration as per Section 50C

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

DELIGHT PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment

H.B EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediah. B. Exports Vs. Acit Bn-96, West Shalimar Bagh, Circle – 34(1) New Delhi-110 008 New Delhi Pan No. Aaafh 4938 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Mahir Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts, by holding the appeal as infructuous and not deciding the appeal on merits, whereas, it is mandatory in law for CIT (A) to decide the appeal on merits of the case. 1.1 That the learned CIT (A) has overlooked the fact that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delays in re-filing and filing the captioned appeal stand condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA 192/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:04.07.2025 13:00:29 Signature Not Verified ITA No.192/2025 Page