SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

section 1448 of IT Act, the case was duly transferred to the jurisdiction AO, who has no previous idea about the assessment proceedings in the case. However it is pointed out, that, even during the DRP stage and even after providing opportunity by AO, the assessee could not submit any evidence with respect to bank statement of assessee and also

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

65,425/-. In response to notice\nissued u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act. appellant filed his return showing income\nof Rs. 98,25,914/-. Assessment order u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act was passed\nagain at Rs, 1,04.65.425/- without doing any verification with regard to income\nincreased by CPC while passing order u/s 143(1) of Income

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

65,527/- to the income declared in the return filed in response to notice\nu/s 148 by estimating the profits on undisclosed sales.\n5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide\norder dated 28.02.2025, quashed reassessment order on the ground of limitations.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

65 lakh made under Section 132(4) of the Act and incorporated in the ROI. 6. On perusal of the assessment order framed under S. 153A, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

65,527/- to the income declared in the return filed in response to notice\nu/s 148 by estimating the profits on undisclosed sales.\n5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide\norder dated 28.02.2025, quashed reassessment order on the ground of limitations.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

65,527/- to the income declared in the return filed in response to notice\nu/s 148 by estimating the profits on undisclosed sales.\n5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide\norder dated 28.02.2025, quashed reassessment order on the ground of limitations.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154 for any assessment year the proceedings of which have been completed before the 1st day of October, 2009. (3) Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

65,527/- to the income declared in the return filed in response to notice\nu/s 148 by estimating the profits on undisclosed sales.\n5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide\norder dated 28.02.2025, quashed reassessment order on the ground of limitations.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

65,527/- to the income declared in the return filed in response to notice\nu/s 148 by estimating the profits on undisclosed sales.\n5. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide\norder dated 28.02.2025, quashed reassessment order on the ground of limitations.\n6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenue