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

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 other additions u/s 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained money andcheque deposit amounting to Rs.15,48,000/-and u/s 69 of the Act in respect of unexplained 27 purchase of property amounting

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of profits derived from that part of housing projects which consists of unbuilt housing sites cannot be allowed. (iii) Misinterpreted the provisions of sec. 80IB(10) by holdng that the conditions (a) and (c) of the aforesaid section regarding commencement of construction of the housing project and maximum built up area

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

section 147 to 151 are not satisfied. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in reopening the impugned assessment U/S 147, more so when the appellant was searched u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

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

section 147 to 151 are not satisfied. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in reopening the impugned assessment U/S 147, more so when the appellant was searched u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

u/s 154 within the period of four years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed but not thereafter.” 12. The Tribunal on the above reasoning held for the year under consideration, the return was processed under Section 143(3) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued within

DESIGNARCH INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 8199/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Part-Ii, Ward-7(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfi4218C Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2020

u/s 148 at their disposal to come out with the details of the deposit. 15. Our above view in respect of Rs.5,00,000/- leads to examination of applicability of Explanation-3 to Section 147 of the IT Act inserted by the Finance (No. 2 of 2009) with regard to the ground no 7 of the appeal where

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

14) filed by the Ld AO to take approval from the appropriate authority vls 151. Kindly refer question in item No.7 which says "Whether the provisions of sec. 147(a) or 147(b) applicable or both the sections are applicable". The AO in the reply mentions section 147(b) applicable. Here it may be appreciated that the sections 147

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

14) filed by the Ld AO to take approval from the appropriate authority vls 151. Kindly refer question in item No.7 which says "Whether the provisions of sec. 147(a) or 147(b) applicable or both the sections are applicable". The AO in the reply mentions section 147(b) applicable. Here it may be appreciated that the sections 147

HURON BUILDERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed on this preliminary

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. (PB page 55 to 66) (vii) 13.12.2017 Petition under section 144A filed before Jt.CIT/Addl.CIT for seeking direction on validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 for the assessment year 2013-14 (year under appeal). (PB page 67 to 70) 6 I.T.A. No.6251/DEL/2019 (viii) 19.12.2017 Rejoinder submitted on this date, before

WARM FORGINGS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1148/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Warm Forgings P. Ltd., Dcit Plot No.117 & 118, A-3, Vs. Circle 27(1), Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcc7684C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have carefully perused the decisions relied upon ld. counsel for the assessee. I find that the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Naval Oil and Containers Pvt. Ltd [supra] squarely applies on the facts of the case in hand, in as much

ITO, WARD- 21(4), NEW DELHI vs. RUKMINI IRON PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Vs. Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Ward-21(4), X-55/102, Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Naraina, Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H Co No.66/Del/2018 (Ita No.550/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rukmini Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, X-55/102, Loha Mandi, Ward-21(4), Naraina, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaccr7910H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.10.2017 Of The Cit(A)-38, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. In This Case, The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection. Co No.66/Del/2018 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, Ignoring The Decision Of The Ld. Cit (A) In The Case Of Surender Kumar Jain (S. K. Jain) Wherein, It Is Held That Jain Brothers Are Equally Involved In The Accommodation Entry Business & Maintain The Documents & Record. " 2. "On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 2,40,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act By Ignoring The Ratio Decidendi In The Case Of Cit Vs. M/S N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014), 2 Itr-Ol-68 & Pcit-7 Vs. Bikram Singh In It A No. 55/2017 Dated 25/08/2017 On Identical Issue Of Addition As Unexplained Share Capital U/S 68 Of The It Act. 3 The Appellant Craves To Be Allowed To Add & Alter Any Fresh Grounds(S) Of Appealand/Or Delete Or Amend Any Of The Ground(S) Of Appeal."

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 has to be held as valid and permissible 6 CO No.66/Del/2018 in the law. He also submitted that the AO cannot be debarred from initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act merely because the material so gathered was outcome of a search and seizure operation

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

10 can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a hearing on the matters in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under S. 147(a). If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed

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 on the basis of any tangible material available for the concerned assessment year. 1.3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed under

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 on the basis of any tangible material available for the concerned assessment year. 1.3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed under

MAHESHWARI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

reassessment order for the A.Y. 1992-93 in ITA No.901/DEL/2004 has been quashed by Hon‟ble ITAT, hence no unabsorbed losses survives to be carried forward for the A.Y. 1993-94 and the re-assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 1993-94 are without any foundation and jurisdiction.” For the above mentioned reasons, the very foundation for assumption of jurisdiction u/s

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

10. In ground of appeal No. 3 to 3.4, assessee has challenged the order u/s 147 / 143(3) as passed without jurisdiction, mere change of opinion and barred by limitation thus bad in law and void-ab- initio. 11. Before us, the ld. AR argued that the assessment in the case of the assessee was originally completed u/s

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

10. In ground of appeal No. 3 to 3.4, assessee has challenged the order u/s 147 / 143(3) as passed without jurisdiction, mere change of opinion and barred by limitation thus bad in law and void-ab- initio. 11. Before us, the ld. AR argued that the assessment in the case of the assessee was originally completed u/s