NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings and legality of consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act, which was sought to be revised by the impugned order u/s 263

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act, which was sought to be revised by the impugned order u/s 263

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act, which was sought to be revised by the impugned order u/s 263

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act, which was sought to be revised by the impugned order u/s 263

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-ll(A) to 11(F) above, are properly examined vis-a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order

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

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

263 of the Act on 30.03.2019 and the impugned order which was revised was passed u/s 147 of the act on 30.12.2016. He submitted that reassessment

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision order u/s 263 as per the findings given in paras-(14)(A) to (14)(J) above, are properly examined vis -a-vis the evidences collected and required to be collected, the claims made by the assessee regarding such evidences and the position of law, so as to ensure that the errors pointed out in this order

SARENA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, DELHI-3, DELHI

Accordingly decided in favour of the assessee.\n\n13.\nConsequently the appeals succeed and same are allowed

reassessment proceedings and legality of consequent order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of\nthe Act dated 28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST (REGD),FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

reassessment proceedings in following manners:- “It is respectfully submittedthat the fee received from students is credited under various heads, building and amalgamation funds being one of them. It is further submitted that building fund is the amount collected from Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) new admissions and it is spent for the purpose of construction of building. Amalgamation fund

SSE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice

SURYA IRRIGATION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice

M/S. SNB ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice

SHREE SAI CITY PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice