MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

147, the Assessing Officer does not assess or, as the case may be, reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice under section 148, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess independently any other income, which does not form the subject matter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

147, the Assessing Officer does not assess or, as the case may be, reassess the income which he has reason to believe had escaped assessment and which formed the basis of a notice under section 148, is it open to the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess independently any other income, which does not form the subject matter

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act by alleging that the notice issued u/s148 is barred by limitations as per order of hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 18. Heard both the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the issue on validity of the proceedings u/s 148

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act by alleging that the notice issued u/s148 is barred by limitations as per order of hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 18. Heard both the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the issue on validity of the proceedings u/s 148

M/s JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the appeal is allowed and

u/s 148.” 8.3 It cannot be disputed and it is not the case of either side that the reasons extracted hereinabove did not precede the issuance of notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. The requirement for recordal of reasons by the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 148

SADHNA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus or link which discloses escapement of income. Annexure is not a pointer

AJAY SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus or link which discloses escapement of income. Annexure is not a pointer

JYOTI ENGINEERING WORKS,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus or link which discloses escapement of income. Annexure is not a pointer

AJAY SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus or link which discloses escapement of income. Annexure is not a pointer

SADHNA SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejyoti Engineering Works Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, Rohini New Delhi Delhi Aadfj9259M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Sadhna Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sectdor-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Aawps0941G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ajay Sharma Vs Ito C/O. Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Ward-35(3) Sector-7, New Delhi Rohini, Delhi Abbps7289K (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus or link which discloses escapement of income. Annexure is not a pointer

ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5608/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Ali Mohammad Acit, Mohalla Kot Kachchi Saray, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Etopm2968E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 148 by the Assessing Officer are simultaneous. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appeal to challenge the reassessment order.” 7. As could be seen from the above, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held in a batch of writ petitions filed by the assessee that where notices u/s 148 of the Act were issued prior to obtaining

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 148 mandates issue of notice before assessment, reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 148 mandates issue of notice before assessment, reassessment or computation of income u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory

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

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 R/W Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction?” 3. In order

COLVIN CARE PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Colvin Care Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-4(2), C-531, 2Nd Floor, Sushant Lok-1, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Gurgaon, Haryana-1220002 Vs Delhi-110002 Pan-Aajcc0406C Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Adv. Respondent/Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 30.05.2023. Through the impugned assessment order the ld AO made additions to assessee’s income amounting to Rs.78,78,470/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The ld counsel for the assessee requested that its grounds of appeal challenging legality of the reassessment proceedings under section 148

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

reassessment under Sections 139, 147. 148, 149, 151 & 153. 7.5 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Aditi Constructions V. DCIT (2023) (5) TMI 281 has held that the specific provisions of section 153C would prevail over the general provisions of section 147. 7.6. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Dinakara Suvarna

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident

CHIRAG KIRPAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

u/s 144C(5). 2. The preliminary issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Learned AO could be construed as valid when the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have