SUNRISE PORPBUILD PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O without considering the fact that the reasons u/s 148 were recorded merely

SUNRISE PROPBUILD PVT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O without considering the fact that the reasons u/s 148 were recorded merely

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

145 31.10.2018 Annexure P- 9 on Pg. 80 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P - 8 on pg. 252 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P - 8 on pg. 156 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P-10 on pg. 226 of WP 9 Final assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 254 of the Act 20.11.2018 Annexure P-11 on pg. 200 of WP November

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

145 31.10.2018 Annexure P- 9 on Pg. 80 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P - 8 on pg. 252 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P - 8 on pg. 156 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P-10 on pg. 226 of WP 9 Final assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 254 of the Act 20.11.2018 Annexure P-11 on pg. 200 of WP November

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

145 31.10.2018 Annexure P- 9 on Pg. 80 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P - 8 on pg. 252 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P - 8 on pg. 156 of WP 31.10.2018 Annexure P-10 on pg. 226 of WP 9 Final assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 254 of the Act 20.11.2018 Annexure P-11 on pg. 200 of WP November

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

145(3) as the transaction recorded in the books are partly accommodation entry which challenged the reliability of the entries/ transactions recorded in the books of accounts leading AO to estimate the total turnover at Rs. 14.50 crore as against declared turnover of Rs. 13.34 crore and profit at Rs. 3,03,05,000/- as against

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

145(3) as the transaction recorded in the books are partly accommodation entry which challenged the reliability of the entries/ transactions recorded in the books of accounts leading AO to estimate the total turnover at Rs. 14.50 crore as against declared turnover of Rs. 13.34 crore and profit at Rs. 3,03,05,000/- as against

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

145 shall, so far as may be, apply." An analysis of this sub section indicates that, after the return is filed, this clause enables the assessing officer to complete the assessment by following the procedure like issue of notice under Sections 143(2)/142 and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). This Section does not provide for accepting

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

AMOL AWASTHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, C.C.1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

147 and 148 of the Act as existed earlier and which have been brought back into the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2021 were sufficient to take care of the assessments in consequence to an income-tax search. The Legislature in its wisdom carved out special provisions for such assessments w.e.f. 01/06/2003 till 20 ITAs No.1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024 31/03/2021

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment of the income of the appellant. The ground of appeal is thus ruled against the appellant. 6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of disallowance under section 36 (l)(iii). 6.1 The AO held that the appellant company used substantial amount of funds which were borrowed as investments, which was not the business of the company. Therefore

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

reassessment of the income of the appellant. The ground of appeal is thus ruled against the appellant. 6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of disallowance under section 36 (l)(iii). 6.1 The AO held that the appellant company used substantial amount of funds which were borrowed as investments, which was not the business of the company. Therefore

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-2, M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacb0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

u/s 144C(13) of the Act expired on 30/06/2017. 3.4 The Ld. counsel also taken another argument that the Assessing Officer has passed multiple assessment orders. He referred to page 105 to 107 of the paper book and submitted that after receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on 09/12/2013 under section