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

u/s 148 which are as under: GOA No. 3 to 3.4-Validity of re-assessment proceedings 24. In the present case, reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer vide notice dated 31.03.2014, ie, much beyond the period of 4 years and almost at the fag-end of the overall limitation period

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

reassessment order for the A.Y. 1992-93 in ITA No.901/DEL/2004 has been quashed by Hon‟ble ITAT, hence no unabsorbed losses survives to be carried forward for the A.Y. 1993-94 and the re-assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 1993-94 are without any foundation and jurisdiction.” For the above mentioned reasons, the very foundation for assumption of jurisdiction u/s

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

129 (Bom.). 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after

VRC TOWNSHIP P LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

129 (Bom.). 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

129 (Bom.). 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

129 (Bom.). 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

147 of the I.T. Act is required to be taken in the case. Issue of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby approved as it is fit case.” 12.3. Further, the Assessing Officer has cited the instances of the non- compliances by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as discussed above in Para no.6.1 and 13.1. of this

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

147 of the I.T. Act is required to be taken in the case. Issue of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby approved as it is fit case.” 12.3. Further, the Assessing Officer has cited the instances of the non- compliances by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as discussed above in Para no.6.1 and 13.1. of this

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

147 of the I.T. Act is required to be taken in the case. Issue of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby approved as it is fit case.” 12.3. Further, the Assessing Officer has cited the instances of the non- compliances by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as discussed above in Para no.6.1 and 13.1. of this

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

147 of the I.T. Act is required to be taken in the case. Issue of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby approved as it is fit case.” 12.3. Further, the Assessing Officer has cited the instances of the non- compliances by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as discussed above in Para no.6.1 and 13.1. of this

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

147 of the I.T. Act is required to be taken in the case. Issue of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 is hereby approved as it is fit case.” 12.3. Further, the Assessing Officer has cited the instances of the non- compliances by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as discussed above in Para no.6.1 and 13.1. of this

BEHAT HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

129 (Bom.). 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after

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

section 147 of the Act was wrongly violated by Revenue. Therefore, we dismiss all the grounds of appeal in this appeal filed by the Revenue, and hold that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and initiation of proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act was erroneous in law in the facts and circumstances of this case

GANESH GANGA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

129 (Bom.). 11. On the issue of validity of reopening and initiation reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act the ld. AR also pointed out that as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. 296 ITR 90 (Bom), the AO to wait for four weeks to begin assessment after

PIONEER TOWN PLANNERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri N.K.Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Del/2018 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income E-104, Greater Kailash Enclave, Tax, Part-I, Circle-19(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. [Pan: Aaecp 6502F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Parmita Tripathy, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2018

147 of the Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. 9. The ld. AR drew our attention towards copy of proforma of obtaining approval u/s. 151 of the Act along with reasons recorded, which are placed at pgs. 16-18 of the assessee’s paper book, submitted that in column 12 Addl. CIT has granted approval

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

reassessment.” The Hon’ble High Court as held that then cannot be two parallel proceedings on the self same issue as are based on the view that there were materials available on record which warranted exercise of jurisdiction u/s 154 and the other initiated u/s 147 that there was escapement of income from tax. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal

M/S BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

u/s 143(3) and where there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of the assessment, then initiation of re-assessment proceedings after a period of four years is invalid. 1. DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam

SHANKER TRADEX PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue keeping all other issues and unadjudicated

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 3552, 105-10, Ravi Raj Market, Chawri Ward-23(1), Bazar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics8635G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment, the proper approval u/s 151 (2) has not been taken from proper authority and therefore the original order passed u/s 147 of the act on 31 March 2015 is bad in law. He submitted that though this is the appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax- A in order passed by the learned assessing

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:

u/s 148 of the Act. In support of prayer under Rule 27 of the Rules, the Ld. AR of the assessee has made following submissions in detail: “Initiation of Reassessment proceedings wholly without jurisdiction As stated above, the original assessment was completed vide order dated 29.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act/pages 119 to 128 of the paper