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

20 “Where upon the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 147, the Assessing Officer does not assess or, as the case may be, reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice under section 148, is it open

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)

Reassessment order & Ors. Vs. State of Tamilnadu – 255 ITR 147 (S.C) holding that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provisions which is plain and unambiguous. He submitted that a project cannot be approved in piecemeal. Approval is accorded to the entire project. Blocks of residential units are part s of a project and not project by itself

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

147 and more when burden to prove the addition u/s 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) was on the revenue. 17. 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 rejecting the audit report u/s 10CCB and that too without

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

147 and more when burden to prove the addition u/s 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) was on the revenue. 17. 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 rejecting the audit report u/s 10CCB and that too without

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

20. Emphatic endeavour was made by Ms. Bansal, counsel appearing for the Revenue to demolish the aforesaid arguments of the assessee. Apart from relying upon the reasons given by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT in conforming the authority of the notice under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, she emphasized that while examining validity

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

20,00,000/- by treating the same as also being reed, from the companies related to Sh. S. K. Jain and Sh. V. K. Jain, which is incorrect, thus the addition confirmed on wrong premises cannot be sustained.” 3. The ground no. 1 is not pressed. 4. Ground Nos. 3 to 5 relates to reopening u/s 147. 5. Ground

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)

20% on 'B' 9514046 (eligible for deduction u/s 10 A) E Balance Operating •C - 'D' (Excessive 25400890 Profits (not eligible Deduction claimed for deduction u/s u/s IDA) 10A) Further, as per the P&L A/c, the assessee has earned interest income on deposits with banks to j the tune of Rs.1,26,118/-. In the case of the assessee

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)

20% on 'B' 9514046 (eligible for deduction u/s 10 A) E Balance Operating •C - 'D' (Excessive 25400890 Profits (not eligible Deduction claimed for deduction u/s u/s IDA) 10A) Further, as per the P&L A/c, the assessee has earned interest income on deposits with banks to j the tune of Rs.1,26,118/-. In the case of the assessee

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

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.

reassessment proceedings based on Non-existing provision of law and also errors contained in the performa: Non application of mind is discernable from the performa (PB 18) filed by the AO to take approval from the appropriate authority u/s 151. In question in item No.7 which says “Whether the provisions of section 147(a) or 147(b) are applicable

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.

reassessment proceedings based on Non-existing provision of law and also errors contained in the performa: Non application of mind is discernable from the performa (PB 18) filed by the AO to take approval from the appropriate authority u/s 151. In question in item No.7 which says “Whether the provisions of section 147(a) or 147(b) are applicable

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio, therefore, the same is quashed.” 10. The genesis of the controversy towards jurisdiction in the present case are the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act therefore, it may be relevant to reproduce the reasons recorded for ready reference. “Reasons for the belief that

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

section in the notice is prima facie evidence of non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Their lordship in this judgment categorically held that such defect cannot be cured u/s. 292B of the Act. 10. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals