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

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

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

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

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), 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

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), 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

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

U/s 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act,1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nwithin the meaning of explanation1 to the sub-section (1) of the section\n271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated.\nAddition: Rs. 44,05,518/-\nThe issue on merits at the heart of the matter is allowability of the cost

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 which is special mechanism for bringing to tax the income discovered in consequence of a search. Although Sec.148 (inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021) does not begin with a non- obstante clause similar to the erstwhile section 153A, its context and Explanation- 2 makes it clear that where a search is initiated, the jurisdiction thereafter must flow through

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

127 of the Act. 10. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact in holding that issue regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is premature, therefore, need not be to adjudicated. 11. That under the facts and circumstances of the case

PURI OIL MILLS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

127, and the said being part of the records, duly disclosed in original assessment proceedings framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore such reopening was on mere change of opinion and review of the completed assessment, which is impermissible in law. 3. That the worthy CIT (Appeals) while upholding the reassessment proceedings and the quantum thereof was absolutely wrong