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,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

5% of material and labour cost. 7.3 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred in not allowing depreciation on aforesaid amount of personnel cost treated as capital expenditure. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B

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

5% of material and labour cost. 7.3 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred in not allowing depreciation on aforesaid amount of personnel cost treated as capital expenditure. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors vs. ACIT 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B

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

5,96,25,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained credit without considering the submissions along with confirmations, balance sheet, ITR and bank statements of different cash creditors. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the adhoc addition of Rs. 4,89,600/- u/s 69C of the Income

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

5,96,25,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained credit without considering the submissions along with confirmations, balance sheet, ITR and bank statements of different cash creditors. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the adhoc addition of Rs. 4,89,600/- u/s 69C of the Income

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

5,96,25,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained credit without considering the submissions along with confirmations, balance sheet, ITR and bank statements of different cash creditors. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the adhoc addition of Rs. 4,89,600/- u/s 69C of the Income

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

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

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

5) of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or (iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case

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

5,83,91,17,785/ after making addition of Rs. 61,00,79,579/ on account of sales tax incentive treating it as revenue receipt.Petitioner preferred appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi under Section 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

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253) [Delhi ITAT]  E-fund IT Solutions (364 ITR 256) [Delhi High Court], confirmed by Supreme Court  Rolls Royce Plc (339 ITR 147) [Delhi High Court]  Rolls Royce Singapore (347 ITR 192) [Delhi High Court]  Hyundai Rotem Company (ITA No. 3300 to 3302/DEL/2009) [Delhi ITAT]  Galileo International (114 TTJ 289) [Delhi ITAT]  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (114 TTJ 1) [Delhi ITAT

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253) [Delhi ITAT]  E-fund IT Solutions (364 ITR 256) [Delhi High Court], confirmed by Supreme Court  Rolls Royce Plc (339 ITR 147) [Delhi High Court]  Rolls Royce Singapore (347 ITR 192) [Delhi High Court]  Hyundai Rotem Company (ITA No. 3300 to 3302/DEL/2009) [Delhi ITAT]  Galileo International (114 TTJ 289) [Delhi ITAT]  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (114 TTJ 1) [Delhi ITAT

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253) [Delhi ITAT]  E-fund IT Solutions (364 ITR 256) [Delhi High Court], confirmed by Supreme Court  Rolls Royce Plc (339 ITR 147) [Delhi High Court]  Rolls Royce Singapore (347 ITR 192) [Delhi High Court]  Hyundai Rotem Company (ITA No. 3300 to 3302/DEL/2009) [Delhi ITAT]  Galileo International (114 TTJ 289) [Delhi ITAT]  Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (114 TTJ 1) [Delhi ITAT

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

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

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:— (i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected

M/S. GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

147, section section 149, section 151 and 148, section 149, section 151 section 153, where the and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of article or thing or books of account or documents