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

b) it is nobody's case that any new or additional fact has come on record post completion of assessment. Pertinently, DERC order dated 23.02.2008, relied upon by the AO, was very much available prior to passing of original assessment order on 24.12.2009 and was in fact considered in the original assessment. There is no other material which has been

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

b) it is nobody's case that any new or additional fact has come on record post completion of assessment. Pertinently, DERC order dated 23.02.2008, relied upon by the AO, was very much available prior to passing of original assessment order on 24.12.2009 and was in fact considered in the original assessment. There is no other material which has been

ITO, WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALMAK FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 read with 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, even though notice has been issued by ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur but once she is clear that the jurisdiction over the matter lies with ITO, Ward 2(1), Jaipur, merely because the permission has not been received from the ld. Pr. CIT for transfer of PAN, she cannot proceed

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition u/s

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition u/s

RAHUL RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, GHAZIABAD

4. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court by\nfollowing aforesaid judgments recently in the case of Indian Bank vs.\nManual Govindji Khona reported in 2015 (3) SCC 712. Further, similar\nview was emphasized by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (GOA Bench) in\nthe case of Mavany Brothers vs. CIT (Tax Appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. EMPIRE CASTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and C

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

4 of Rs. 60,268/- as was declared in the original return of income filed on 24.11.2003. Assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 were covered u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act and the assessment for assessment year 2003-04 i.e. the year under consideration was completed at Rs. 28,35,120/- u/s 143(3) r/w section 153C

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

120, account. domain company there is nothing 122 cannot be none of the incriminating said to be document which suggest belonging to pertains to any escapement the the of income by the 2. These documents assessee. assessment assessee. are also available in year in public domain. High Court of question. These statutory Delhi – Sunny documents cannot Supreme InfraprojectsLtd: be said

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

120, account. domain company there is nothing 122 cannot be none of the incriminating said to be document which suggest belonging to pertains to any escapement the the of income by the 2. These documents assessee. assessment assessee. are also available in year in public domain. High Court of question. These statutory Delhi – Sunny documents cannot Supreme InfraprojectsLtd: be said

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

120, account. domain company there is nothing 122 cannot be none of the incriminating said to be document which suggest belonging to pertains to any escapement the the of income by the 2. These documents assessee. assessment assessee. are also available in year in public domain. High Court of question. These statutory Delhi – Sunny documents cannot Supreme InfraprojectsLtd: be said

DELICATE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

b) Now I will examine the evidences gathered during the search at the premises of Jain brothers as well as at the premises of the appellant & BPTP group of cases relating to these additions. As discussed in earlier para graph seized annexure A- 10 & A-II contained date wise receipt of cash by Jain Brothers from one Sh. Ram Prasad

PAVITRA REALCON PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

b) Now I will examine the evidences gathered during the search at the premises of Jain brothers as well as at the premises of the appellant & BPTP group of cases relating to these additions. As discussed in earlier para graph seized annexure A- 10 & A-II contained date wise receipt of cash by Jain Brothers from one Sh. Ram Prasad

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MAM RAJ CHUNNI LAL EXIM, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Mam Raj Chunni Lal Exim Ward- 46 (1) Shop No. 5183, Ground New Delhi Floor, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar, Delhi -110006 Pan No.Aaxfm0533B (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or re-computation under Section 147; or 2. issuance of notice under Section 148; or 3. conducting of inquiry or issuance of show cause notice or passing of order under Section 148A; or 4. sanction for issuance of notice under Section 151 5.10 The CBDT also amended section 130 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide Taxation and Other Laws

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

b) does not show any application of mind which, it is submitted, is sine qua non for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In terms of section 151, recording of proper and legally sustainable sanction under section 151 is a sine qua non for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, however, as evident from

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

b) does not show any application of mind which, it is submitted, is sine qua non for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In terms of section 151, recording of proper and legally sustainable sanction under section 151 is a sine qua non for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, however, as evident from

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

b) does not show any application of mind which, it is submitted, is sine qua non for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In terms of section 151, recording of proper and legally sustainable sanction under section 151 is a sine qua non for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, however, as evident from

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

b) does not show any application of mind which, it is submitted, is sine qua non for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In terms of section 151, recording of proper and legally sustainable sanction under section 151 is a sine qua non for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, however, as evident from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

b) does not show any application of mind which, it is submitted, is sine qua non for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In terms of section 151, recording of proper and legally sustainable sanction under section 151 is a sine qua non for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, however, as evident from

COSMIC INFORMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

b) does not show any application of mind which, it is submitted, is sine qua non for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In terms of section 151, recording of proper and legally sustainable sanction under section 151 is a sine qua non for initiating reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act, however, as evident from