HCL TECHNOLOGIES NORWAY AS ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

HCL SINGAPORE PTE. LTD (SUCCESSOR TO AXON SOLUTIONS SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED),DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, similar grounds of appeal, in all the captioned

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

reassessment proceedings have been initiated and final assessment order has been passed in contravention of the procedure prescribed under section 151A of the Act. RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FROM HCLT NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA 4. Issue squarely covered in favour of the Appellant by binding decision of the Tribunal 41 That, at the outset, the assessing officer erred on facts

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

reassessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2022 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed by making additions of Rs.10,96,92,546/- after disallowing various expenses claimed. 9. Against the said order, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the merits of the submissions made, had deleted

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

reassessment order is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the twin conditions are not satisfied. He also relied upon several judicialprecedents for the same. V. He relied upon the fact that merely because of the reason that the learned assessing officer did not carry out the inquiries as envisaged by the learned

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801A(8) as well as making an excessive claim of deduction u/s 80IC. All these facts are well incorporated in the reasons recorded by the AO wherein he records that " the assessee is contravening the provisions of section 80IA (8") and "that entire value addition to the product is being attributed to the Guwahati unit by the assessee". Hence

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801A(8) as well as making an excessive claim of deduction u/s 80IC. All these facts are well incorporated in the reasons recorded by the AO wherein he records that " the assessee is contravening the provisions of section 80IA (8") and "that entire value addition to the product is being attributed to the Guwahati unit by the assessee". Hence

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the basis of proceedings concluded for a subsequent assessment year and not A T Kearney India Private Limited V ITO A Y 2005-06 & 2007-08 ITA no 510& 511 /Del/2014 Page 27 of 31 on the basis of any tangible material available for the concerned assessment year. 1.3. Based

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the basis of proceedings concluded for a subsequent assessment year and not A T Kearney India Private Limited V ITO A Y 2005-06 & 2007-08 ITA no 510& 511 /Del/2014 Page 27 of 31 on the basis of any tangible material available for the concerned assessment year. 1.3. Based

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

801A can be claimed even though Form 10CCB was not filed with the return of income but was filed during the course of assessment. 27. To summarize, the ld AR stated that the aforesaid judgement has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the context of specific statutory timeline for withdrawal of claim as mandated under section 10B(8), which

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

reassessment year 1998-99, where it has declined the benefit to the assessee cannot be found fault with. But there is change in the law for the assessment year 2001-02. Section 10(B)(1) and (4) reads as under- "Section 108: Special provisions in respect off newly established hundred per cent export oriented undertakings (1) Subject to the provisions

RRB ENERGY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any reason or basis or material; ii) in acting u/s 147 r.w.s. 143 (3) of the Act to redo the assessment solely on the basis of change of opinion and in 2 I.T.A.No.1874./Del/2013 violation of the parameters envisaged under the proviso to section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD vs. HEENA EXPORT CORPORATION, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IC(7) and 801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? “ C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020 – [By the assessee] (Heena export Corporation) “ 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law, for the assumption & misapplication of jurisdiction for reassessment

HENNA EXPORTS CORPORATION,HARYANA vs. ADDL. CIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Henna Export Corporation, Addl. Cit, 1031/2, Link Road, Range : 1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & Ita Nos. 6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6579 & 6580/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit, M/S. Heena Industries Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Faridabad. Plot No. 45, Sector : 27– A, Faridabad. Pan : Aabch7692B & Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dcit, Henna Export Corporation, Circle-1, 1031/2, Link Road, Vs. Faridabad. Old Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N & C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020. [ In Ita Nos. 6570, 6571, 6572, 6573 & 6574/Del/2017 ] (Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Henna Export Corporation, Dcit, 1031/2, Link Road, Circle-1, Vs. Old Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan : Aabfh7670N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IC(7) and 801A(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? “ C. O. Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 & 80/Del/2020 – [By the assessee] (Heena export Corporation) “ 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law, for the assumption & misapplication of jurisdiction for reassessment