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

reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as no sanction us 151 of the Act has been provided. Conclusion For the reasons discussed hereinabove, it is respectfully prayed that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under sections 147/144 of the Act calls for being quashed. 7.4 Finding of Ground of Appeal No.2: a) I have carefully considered

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

147 of the Act and failure to serve\nnotice before completion of the assessment renders the order\ninvalid. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta\n(supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that reassessment\nproceedings finalized by the Assessing Officer without affecting\nproper service

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

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 subsection (2) of section 148." 5.1.2 Hence, considering the above legal provisions before initiating action

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

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 subsection (2) of section 148." 5.1.2 Hence, considering the above legal provisions before initiating action

SKY BLUE INFOTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.438/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Sky Blue Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 206, Hans Bhawan, 1, Vs. Ward-23(4), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, Room No.246, C.R. Bldg., New Delhi. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aalcs1584K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment proceeding must be quashed. For adjudicating this issue, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and relevant proforma of approval granted by the Pr. CIT are reproduced as under: "Reason for the belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s, Omkam Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 (Pan:AAACQ5036B) 1. Name & Address of the Assessee

AMIT KHATRI,SONIPAT vs. ITO, WARD 1, SONIPAT

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

reassessment proceeding must be quashed. For adjudicating this issue, the reasons recorded by the I.T.A. No. 2430/Del/2023 Assessing Officer and relevant proforma of approval granted by the Pr. CIT are reproduced as under: "Reason for the belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of M/s, Omkam Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 (Pan:AAACQ5036B) 1. Name & Address

SSE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice it was stated

SHREE SAI CITY PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice it was stated

SURYA IRRIGATION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice it was stated

M/S. SNB ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act on 193.03.2014 accepting the return income as assessed income of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the ld Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 19.01.2017 holding that the order passed by the ld AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. according to the notice it was stated

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

147. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26th March, 2018 after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT-7, New Delhi. In response to the same, the assessee filed a letter stating that the return already filed u/s 139 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, another letter dated