ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

reassessment u/s 147. If CIT(A) tries to examine those issues which have not been considered by the AO, sec. 147 as well as sec. 263 will become redundant and the conditions for their operation will be nullified. This view is fully supported by various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court and Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT as under

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue therefore they are taken together for consideration. 9. Before us, Ld. AR submits that the AO has made the addition by holding the purchases as bogus against which first appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A). As per ld. AR, the AO has taken a plausible view

MANOJ KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

69B, section 69C, Section 69D if such income is not covered under clause (a) the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty percent, and (ii) the amount of income tax with which the assessee would been chargeable

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX VENTURES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Acit, Vs Max Venture Investment Holdings Circle-16(2), Pvt.Ltd., Max House, New Delhi. 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacd0213H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Respondent By S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv., Rohan Khare, Adv. & Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022

Section 69B for AY 2012-13. Based on this finding of the CIT(A), reassessment proceedings were initiated under section

RISHI RAJ JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) is in violation of mandatory provision of section 153D of the Act and as such is bad in the eyes law. That the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without application of mind.” 6. The additional ground sought to be raised being

HECTOR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassess taking into\nconsideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can\nbe made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material\nfound during the course of search under s. 132. or requisition\nunder S. 132A of the 1961 Act. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be reopened

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

CIT vs. NAVEEN GERA

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

69B or fair market value of any property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 56 is required to be made], the Assessing Officer may require the Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) ………………… (3) ………………… Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of an assessment made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH.SMT. DEEPTI TALLA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B

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

reassessment on the borrowed information which was not examined by himself before issuing notice u/s 148 which was on last day when it was becoming barred by limitation. Whereas the information was received by him in 2013 and in 4 years thereafter the AO did not enquire any thing from the assessee or collected any material to arrive at reason

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. URVASHI TALLA, NEW DELHI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA RANI TALLA, NEW DELHI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment under this Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), were completed in the case of the assessee on 31/12/2010 making additions of Rs. 1,68,29,316/- under section 68 of the Act and simultaneously not allowed to set off the business loss of the current year or earlier years on the ground that

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), were completed in the case of the assessee on 31/12/2010 making additions of Rs. 1,68,29,316/- under section 68 of the Act and simultaneously not allowed to set off the business loss of the current year or earlier years on the ground that