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

reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification order passed u/s 154 / 147 / 143(3) dated 24.11.2015 at a total loss of Rs. 40,34,81,098/-. Against the order passed u/s 147 / 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed

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

reassessed at Rs. 36,76,28,228/- which stood rectified in terms of the rectification order passed u/s 154 / 147 / 143(3) dated 24.11.2015 at a total loss of Rs. 40,34,81,098/-. Against the order passed u/s 147 / 143(3), the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017 has dismissed

THE KADIYAN COOP. L&C SOCIETY LTD.,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 80P(2) VI of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to invoke for mutual interest of employment.” 3. The appellant assessee is a cooperative society, which is primarily having object of promoting the economic interest of manual labourers by providing suitable and profitable employment to them by obtaining contract work from government or private. The assessee filed its return

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961on the quantum of interest charged u/s 234A & 234B is hereby rejected. The assessee application on the issue of quantum of interest under section 234C is acceptable as interest under section 234C is levied on return of income filed Maharashtra Feeds P Ltd. under section 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore

MAHARASHTRA FEEDS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961on the quantum of interest charged u/s 234A & 234B is hereby rejected. The assessee application on the issue of quantum of interest under section 234C is acceptable as interest under section 234C is levied on return of income filed Maharashtra Feeds P Ltd. under section 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 54 of the Act, 1961." (page 52)” 5. In respect of the jurisdictional issue of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, learned counsel for the assessee has made multi-fold propositions which we will deal seriatim, and the same are noted as under: i) During pendency of proceedings under Section 154

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

154 (Bom.) and it was held as under: "Section 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 163, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

154 (Bom.) and it was held as under: "Section 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 163, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. BHAIJEE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by Pf. Director of Income Tax (Inv.),' Ahmedabad at the premises of NMCE and backup of the NMCE trade was taken. The information in the database was perused and analyzed and a list of 85 suspicious parties was generated. After analysis, most of the companies In the said list were

BHAIJEE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted by Pf. Director of Income Tax (Inv.),' Ahmedabad at the premises of NMCE and backup of the NMCE trade was taken. The information in the database was perused and analyzed and a list of 85 suspicious parties was generated. After analysis, most of the companies In the said list were

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

u/s 147 within the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, even if there is a full and true disclosure of all material facts in the original assessment’ The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “7. The crucial expression is "reason to believe". The expression predicates that AO must hold

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed by the AO on 31/3/2015 for Assessment year 2007-08, is not only prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the 25 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 AO has failed to look into the seized material. Therefore, the said order is set aside with a direction

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed by the AO on 31/3/2015 for Assessment year 2007-08, is not only prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the 25 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 AO has failed to look into the seized material. Therefore, the said order is set aside with a direction

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed by the AO on 31/3/2015 for Assessment year 2007-08, is not only prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the 25 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 AO has failed to look into the seized material. Therefore, the said order is set aside with a direction

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order passed by the AO on 31/3/2015 for Assessment year 2007-08, is not only prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but is also erroneous in so far as the 25 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 AO has failed to look into the seized material. Therefore, the said order is set aside with a direction

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

154 (Bom.) - Revolation Forver Marketing (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 413 ITR 400 (Del) - Pr. CIT vs RMG Polyvinyl (1) Ltd. 396 1TR 5 (Del) - PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd. 395 ITR 677 (Del) - PCIT vs G & G Pharma India Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (Del.) - CIT v SFIL Stock Broking Ltd: 325 ITR 285 (Del) - CIT vs. Vinceta Jain

M/S. PLAZA CABLE INDUSTRIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

reassessment as framed by taking recourse to the provisions of section 147/148 of the I.T. Act be quashed. In any case, the disallowance of Rs.19,37,322/- be deleted.” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs.7,06,97,714/- for Assessment Year 2004-05 in question. The return was subjected to scrutiny

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person, other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets