MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of which the assessment was reopened and was added u/s 68 of the Act and had also made additionsof Rs.15,48,000/- (Rs.1,48,000/-+Rs.14,00,000/-) and Rs.20,62,375/- u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act respectively. 5.7. Further, as discussed above, the reliance placed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of which the assessment was reopened and was added u/s 68 of the Act and had also made additionsof Rs.15,48,000/- (Rs.1,48,000/-+Rs.14,00,000/-) and Rs.20,62,375/- u/s 68 and u/s 69 of the Act respectively. 5.7. Further, as discussed above, the reliance placed

SUNRISE PROPBUILD PVT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 7 of the Assessee. Sunrise

SUNRISE PORPBUILD PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 7 of the Assessee. Sunrise

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment order under appeal. iii. Likewise in subsequent years, there is no denial of exemption u/s 11 in the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission order dt: 27.11.2015 (PB 104-133) and also acknowledgment of the fact that in para 8 to 8.3 at pages 117-118 that the registration u/s 12AA and notification under 10(23C)(vi) has been

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 2 of the Assessee

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 2 of the Assessee

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee cannot turn back and say that it had not received the copy of the 143(2) notice. 18. Thereafter, the ld. CIT DR took our attention to section 292BB and contended that the said section has been introduced by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.12008 and all pending proceedings including the reopening and reassessment in this case

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

reassessment proceedings, the assessee cannot turn back and say that it had not received the copy of the 143(2) notice. 18. Thereafter, the ld. CIT DR took our attention to section 292BB and contended that the said section has been introduced by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.12008 and all pending proceedings including the reopening and reassessment in this case

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 14B of the Act dated 10.03.2022 is an invalid assessment and the revisionary proceedings initiated by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act for revising such an invalid assessment order is unsustainable in law. 12. We further observed that the show-cause notice issued by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 read as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJNIL SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act is permissible for framing protective assessment in the absence of substantive assessment till the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 6. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO (34 taxmann.com 300) has explained that: “15. The jurisdictional requirement for reopening

MAESTRO MULTI STATE COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(4), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

reassessment u/s 147 in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining reopening action of Ld AO u/s 148 on the basis of reasons contrary to the facts of the case. 5. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred