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

reassessment proceedings were quashed and set-aside. However, in the case of the present assessee, the AO had disallowed the claim of the assessee of LTCG of Rs.9,60,000/- being claimed as 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 unlike the case

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

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 34/147." In the same order the Hon'ble court has further held that it not furnish a reasonable ground for the Income tax Officer to believe that on account of the failure - indeed not a mere failure but a positive design to mislead of the assessee to disclose all material facts, fully and truly, necessary for the assessment

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 34/147." In the same order the Hon'ble court has further held that it not furnish a reasonable ground for the Income tax Officer to believe that on account of the failure - indeed not a mere failure but a positive design to mislead of the assessee to disclose all material facts, fully and truly, necessary for the assessment

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAITON vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts had come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from

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(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. 93. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / reassessment

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

10(38) of the Act, impugned reopening u/s 148 is made, which as per coordinate bench decision in case of SBS Realtors (G bench order ITA 779l/Del/2018) is impermissible and similar reasons as 32 Krishan Devi recorded in present case have been hitherto quashed in aforesaid order of coordinate bench. We reproduce the said order here for sake of completeness

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

38 to 41) (iv) 31.03.2017 Notice under section 148 was issued by the same Assessing Officer, for the assessment year 2013-14 (year under appeal) (PB page 23) (v) 11.12.2017 The appellant filed letter of date, which contained reproduction of ‘Reasons recorded’. (PB page 45) (vi) 13.12.2017 Letter of date filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment

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."

10 pertained to a period beyond for years, but before the expiry of six years from the date of issue of notice, therefore, the proviso to section 147 is applicable to the facts of the present case and from the reasons recorded by the AO as reproduced above, we are unable to see any allegation or assertion

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

38, FIE, Functional Industrial Delhi. Estate, Delhi-110092 TAN/PAN: AATPS3546G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shri Amit Goel, CA Respondent by: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 21 08 2023 Date of pronouncement: 09 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

u/s 10 (38) is genuine. 10. The learned assessing officer considered the reply filed by the assessee and held that assessee has purchased the shares at ₹ 35 per share on 12/12/2007 and assessee has not explained that this purchase price of shares was not on higher side. Assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence that can establish that the purchase

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

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

38,807/-. Thereafter vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2014, the reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee and the assessment order was passed u/s 147 / 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2015 wherein the income of the assessee is reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification

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

38,807/-. Thereafter vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2014, the reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee and the assessment order was passed u/s 147 / 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2015 wherein the income of the assessee is reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification

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

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

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

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

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

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

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

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s