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

section 34/147." In the same order the Hon'ble court has further held that it not furnish a reasonable ground for the Income tax Officer to believe that on account of the failure - indeed not a mere failure but a positive design to mislead of the assessee to disclose all material facts, fully and truly, necessary for the assessment

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

3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the Income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons

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

3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the Income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons

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]

reassessment u/s 143(3) r w 147 of the Act are cancelled (albeit without going into the merits of the addition of the income escaping assessment.” 2.2 Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above . 3. Before us, Ld. DR submitted that assessment has been

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

253(1)(d) of Act, 1961. Tribunal allowed appeal partly vide order dated 08.12.2014. It confirmed addition of Rs. 61,00,79,579/ towards sales tax subsidy treating it as “revenue receipt”. Against this order petitioner filed further appeal before Honourable high court which is pending.The AO reopened assessment under Section 147 and issued notice dated 21.03.2014 under Section

SHANKER TRADEX PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue keeping all other issues and unadjudicated

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 3552, 105-10, Ravi Raj Market, Chawri Ward-23(1), Bazar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics8635G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment, the proper approval u/s 151 (2) has not been taken from proper authority and therefore the original order passed u/s 147 of the act on 31 March 2015 is bad in law. He submitted that though this is the appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax- A in order passed by the learned assessing

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 38[or section 153A or section 153C] in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order;‖ - Section 253(2A) of the Act (omitted by the Finance Act, 2016, w.e.f. 1-6- 2016) providing Revenue the power to file appeal against the order of assessment completed pursuant

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

147 38[or section 153A or section 153C] in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order;‖ - Section 253(2A) of the Act (omitted by the Finance Act, 2016, w.e.f. 1-6- 2016) providing Revenue the power to file appeal against the order of assessment completed pursuant

CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

147\ntaxmann.com 224 (SC) (Annexure-C). The grant of leave\nsignifies that the issue is admitted for final adjudication, and\nthe correctness of the Madras High Court judgment stands\nsquarely under scrutiny. The order granting leave does not\naffirm the High Court's view, nor does it declare law. Once\nleave is granted, the High Court judgment loses finality

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment proceedings is not in accordance with law. The assessee has furnished a summary of various judgments on this issue in tabular form which are as under: S.No. Name of the case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment proceedings is not in accordance with law. The assessee has furnished a summary of various judgments on this issue in tabular form which are as under: S.No. Name of the case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

reassessment proceedings is not in accordance with law. The assessee has furnished a summary of various judgments on this issue in tabular form which are as under: S.No. Name of the case Notice Approv As per the Hon’ble issued al Court, approval by taken should have been from taken from . 1 CIT vs. SPL’s ACIT CIT JCIT/Addl

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order dated 28.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and ld. representatives both the sides have not placed any arguments on the other grounds of assessee on merits therefore we don’t deem it justified and proper to adjudicate those grounds in absence of any arguments. 13.1 In the result, the appeal of assessee

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order dated 28.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and ld. representatives both the sides have not placed any arguments on the other grounds of assessee on merits therefore we don’t deem it justified and proper to adjudicate those grounds in absence of any arguments. 13.1 In the result, the appeal of assessee

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment order dated 28.03.2016 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, and ld. representatives both the sides have not placed any arguments on the other grounds of assessee on merits therefore we don’t deem it justified and proper to adjudicate those grounds in absence of any arguments. 13.1 In the result, the appeal of assessee

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23 in ITA

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos. 4153 & 4008/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19) Dcit, Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ground Floor, Jmd Regent Room No. 269A, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Plaza, Mg Road, Gurgaon, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Haryana-122001. Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aahcs5999J

reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 which is special mechanism for bringing to tax the income discovered in consequence of a search. Although Sec.148 (inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021) does not begin with a non- obstante clause similar to the erstwhile section 153A, its context and Explanation- 2 makes it clear that where a search is initiated, the jurisdiction thereafter must flow through

TCG DEVELOPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed and reassessment is quashed

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishitcg Development India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 100, Ground Floor, Ward-16(1), Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- New Delhi Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaact2836J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act 1961.” 2. Brief facts of case shows that assessee has been originally assessed under section 143 (3) on 21/12/2009 at nil income. The original return was filed by assessee on 31/10/2007 declaring a loss of INR 3 12568/– subsequently above return was revised on 21/1/2008 claiming a loss of INR 3

M/S BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

253 (SC). He further noted that assessee company has revised its return of income under section 148 for the impugned assessment year and has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of its revised return of income. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., M/s. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., reported

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner