DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 and more when burden to prove the addition u/s 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) was on the revenue. 17. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in rejecting the audit report u/s 10CCB and that too without

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

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, the same is rectified.” 4. Aggrieved, the assesee filed appeal before

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

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, the same is rectified.” 4. Aggrieved, the assesee filed appeal before

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act having being initiated for the purpose of scrutinizing/ investigating the details of the appellant, is illegal and bad in law. 3.4 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the proceedings under section 147 of the Act having been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts

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

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act having being initiated for the purpose of scrutinizing/ investigating the details of the appellant, is illegal and bad in law. 3.4 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the proceedings under section 147 of the Act having been initiated on the basis of incorrect facts

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment u/s 148 qua genuineness of unsecured loan as well as purchases disclosed, considered and accepted during the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10th December 2024 passed by the CIT(A) as well as order dated

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

147 restrict assessing officer to reassess issues which have already been subject matter of appeal, reference or revision before higher authority. He submitted that in present case, third proviso is squarely applicable in respect of deduction under section 801A/80M since (a) Claim of deduction under section 80IA and consequential computation under section 801B was extensively examined/ considered and varied

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 NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 2.2 That on facts and in laws, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 9 ITA No.5126/Del./11 & 1023/Del./2013 3

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 147 are not met rendering the reassessment orders passed thereto as bad in law. 2.2 That on facts and in laws, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO as a result of a mere change of opinion on similar set of facts. 9 ITA No.5126/Del./11 & 1023/Del./2013 3

SJM INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(20, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

234B and 234A.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company filed return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 which was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, assessee’s case was reassessed at the returned income of Rs.58

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue

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

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue

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

234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue

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

In the result the appeal is allowed and

3) and 147 of the Act. By this order the Assessing Officer not only made an addition with respect to the sum of Rs 25,75,000/- which was shown as a credit balance in the MODVAT account and debited by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account but also with respect to expenses incurred by the assessee

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

147 to 153 and in violation of infringement of mandatory applicable binding CBDT instructions/circulars etc, in relation to both reopening u/s 148 and reassessment, thus reassessment was bad in both law and procedure. 3. That the Id. AO erred both in law and on the facts in not supplying "Reason to believe" to the assesse, as per the mandate

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI

u/s 147 r.w.s.\n143(3) for all the three assessment years i.e. for AY 2013-14, AY\n2014-15 and AY 2015-16 are hereby, quashed. The grounds of\nappeals Nos.1 & 2 for all these three years are thus allowed.\n23. Since we have allowed the legal grounds raised by the assessee,\nother grounds of appeal become academic and thus

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.:

234B of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. 3 Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred