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]

189 ITR 285 (SC). Our attention was drawn to proposition No.4; that information as required by Section 147(b) can relate to an earlier decision on the point of law but that information should have come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer by his own efforts. Such information may be gathered after examination of the assessment records. Decision

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

reassessment proceedings amount to a review or change of opinion carried out in the earlier AY 2005-06, which amounts to an abuse of power and is impermissible." It was further noted that even the order of the AO for the AY 2007-08, converting the STCG into business income, has been reversed by the CIT (A) and that order

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

189 (Del.) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT 308 ITR 38 (Del) - CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd: 340 (TR 66 (Bom.) - Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: ITA No. 2205/Del/2015 (Del. Trib.) Re (i): No sanction under section 151 of the Act provided during assessment proceedings 39. It is respectfully submitted that though the notice under section 148 refers

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

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

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

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

SHEELA FOAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4096/Del/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2005-06 Sheela Foam Ltd., C-55, Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacs0189B Vs The Dcit, Central Circle-6, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent New Delhi-110016

reassessment order dated 28.03.2013 passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab initio in as much as same has been passed without issuing and serving the jurisdictional notice under section 143(2) of the Act.” 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

U/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard is being placed, among others, on the following judgments: (amna Lal Kabra Vs. ITO 69 ITR 461 (All), Equitable Investment Co. P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 174 ITR 714 (Cal), Baldev Singh Giane Vs. CIT 248 ITR 266 (P&H), Sheo Narain Jaiswal & Others

M/S MAN DIESEL & TURBO INDIA LTD.,,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singha.Y. 2003-04

reassessment proceeding. 5.1.5 Submission of the appellant, that initiation of proceeding u/s 147 by the AO is a mere change of opinion is of no merit. Because, the issue on 6 account of which the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated by the A.O., were never examined by the A.O. at the time of original assessment u/s

BEST REALTRECH INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanm/S Best Realtrech Income Tax Officer, (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(3), New Delhi H-8, First Floor, Vs. Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan:Aadcb1848D (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 143(3) of the Act and further it is re-opened beyond four years, it is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR filed written submissions consisting of 15 pages and he drew our attention to para 36 and 37 of the written submission which reads as under: “36. The expression "fully and truly

G S BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] G.S.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito A-12, Swasthya Vihar, Ward-10(1) East Delhi, Delhi-110092. Delhi Pan-Aaccg1781H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kr. Dhanistha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

u/s 143(3), reopening of the case of assessee is mere change of opinion. In case the assessment order was found to be erroneous or passed without making requisite enquiries or verification, the proper course of action would be to invoke the provision section 263 which has not been done in the instant case. 11. The Honorable Bombay High Court

SANTOSH KHUNTETA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(5), DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

189-190, Rohini, Ward-29(5) Delhi-110085 Vs. Delhi PAN-AIUPK0102B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mayank Mohanka, CA Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 13/06/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“NFAC

M/S. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

147 of the I.T. Act and it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act will be issued after taking approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi u/s 151(1) of the I.T. Act.” 5.1 It is undisputed that the in the present case

CIT vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD

u/s 147 cannot be justified. In view of our this decision, the other contentions raised by both sides with regard to invalidity of the re-assessment on the basis that the same is based on audit objection does not call for adjudication. Ground No.1 is allowed.” (emphasis supplied) 12. We may notice that Section 147 of the Act underwent substantial

KARAN KHURANA ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

147 of the Act, was valid." 5. The live link between the material provided by the investigation Wing and the reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment has been sufficiently demonstrated. Since, no assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, and period of 4 years has elapsed, hence, forwarded to the Pr. Commissioner of income