M/S. OMEGA BIOTECH LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri B.R.R.Kumar

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 5.7 It is thus clear that

KUBER FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. The above additional ground was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1757/Del/2013 holding that there is no bar on taking action u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, Assessee aggrieved with that order has preferred appeal before

KUBER KHANPAN UDYOG PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. The above additional ground was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1757/Del/2013 holding that there is no bar on taking action u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, Assessee aggrieved with that order has preferred appeal before

PRAKHAR DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Us & Prayed That Additional

127 dated 19.02.2021, this office received the assessment records in 7 volumes for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2017- 18 along with the Transfer Memo dated 19.02.2021 (enclosed herewith). Upon perusal of the records received from DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Kanpur, it is noticed that earlier also a search action u/s 132 of IT Act was conducted on 13.07.2016 by Investigation Unit

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29th of April 2006 in financial year 2006 – 07, pertaining to assessment year 2007 – 08. Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29 April 2006, which became effective from 11 April 2007 with the receipt of part consideration from the builder and handing over the property

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29th of April 2006 in financial year 2006 – 07, pertaining to assessment year 2007 – 08. Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29 April 2006, which became effective from 11 April 2007 with the receipt of part consideration from the builder and handing over the property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29th of April 2006 in financial year 2006 – 07, pertaining to assessment year 2007 – 08. Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement on 29 April 2006, which became effective from 11 April 2007 with the receipt of part consideration from the builder and handing over the property

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

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

section 148 of the Act has been issued without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act being available to the AO, the notice and the subsequent proceedings will be without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be struck down . In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the ld. CIT(A), quashing the reassessment

SURYA JYOTI SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

127 (SC) 5. Shree Maniunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 231 ITR 53 (SC). 16. Regarding challenging the validity of reopening under section 147 by the assessee, on the ground that the proceedings should have been initiated under section 153C, he submitted that the Pr. CIT has dealt with this issue at page 16 of his order

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

127 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, New Delhi vii) 7.3.2022 Show cause notice issued by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, Delhi viii) 15.3.2022 After the Show cause, notice has been issued u/s 143(2) of the Act ix) 23.3.2022 Approval u/s 153D of the Act vide Common letter F. No. Addl/CIT/C.R.-5

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

147 cannot be regarded as having been validly initiated unless P a g e | 17 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13) reasons recorded for initiating the proceedings are served on the assessee within the period of limitation prescribed in section 149 of the Act, i.e, before the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERIOR FILMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed; accordingly, Revenue’s appeal is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as Page 5 of 29 FIT FOR PUBLICATION (ANM) (BS) ITA No.- 4938/Del/2012. (AM) (JM) M/s Superior Films Pvt. Ltd. contended on behalf of the Department-then, in the grab of reopening the assessment, review would take place

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

127 of the Act for transfer of jurisdiction from Ward - 15(1) to Ward - 15(3). ii) That the assessment so made and all consequent orders be annulled. 6. Current account wrongly classified as loan or advance: That the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts by upholding and making addition u/s