INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) arises on account of difference of opinion between two learned Members of the Division Bench. By an order dated 14.02.2025, the following question has been formulated for being decided by the Third Member : 37 "Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening under Section 147

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

7 of\nCPC. - Decided in favour of assessee.\"\n\n9. In the present case, there was no evidence of any\nlocal person having been associated with identifying the\nplace of business of the assessee-respondent and the\nreport was not witnessed by any person at all. In our\nview, it has been clearly flagrant violation of rule 17 of\nOrder

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

255. 237 CTR(Del)473, 220 CTR(Raj)629, 246. 5.1.5 Admittedly, in impugned case, the issue relates to AY 2009-10, therefore, a notice u/s.148 of 1.T. Act can only be issued upto 31.03.2016. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of 1.T. Act was issued on 03.03.2016, which is well within the statutory time limit. However, since an assessment u/s

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

255. 237 CTR(Del)473, 220 CTR(Raj)629, 246. 5.1.5 Admittedly, in impugned case, the issue relates to AY 2009-10, therefore, a notice u/s.148 of 1.T. Act can only be issued upto 31.03.2016. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of 1.T. Act was issued on 03.03.2016, which is well within the statutory time limit. However, since an assessment u/s

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.

u/s 263 for the impugned assessment year, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment order was set aside by the CIT exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 to the limited extent of examining issues relating to deduction under sections 80lA/80IB of the Act. In other words, the reassessment order dated 04.03.2013 under section 147

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 148 is being obtained separately from the Principal Commissioner 'of Income Tax as per the provision of section 51 of the Act " 6. Various queries were raised during the course of assessment proceedings, which were duly replied by the assessee. 7. In its reply dated 28.12.2018, which is extracted at page 5 of the assessment order, the assessee categorically

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

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

UJJWAL MICROFINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 148 of the Act were disposed of by the order exhibited at pages 29 to 33 of the Paper Book. But, surprisingly, the Assessing Officer has not touched upon the specific objections that no such transactions were done by the assessee with the said White Collar Management Ltd. 7. The same was reiterated before

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment dated 15.02.2018 had inter alia made undisclosed source of income addition of Rs.6,00,000/- followed

VISWANATHAN SECURITIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, without there being any application of mind by the learned assessing officer and further his such action was based just on suspicion, surmises and conjectures. I.T.A. No.135/Del/2019 2 2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner company’s case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

7 Detailed objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings along with reply on the merits of the proposed disallowances were filed vide letter dated 08.02.2008, 29.05.2008 & 17.09.2008. (@ PB pg 47-99) Reassessment was completed vide order dated 28.11.2008 at total income of Rs.32,60,00,451 after making following disallowances: • Excess claim disallowed u/s 80HHE in respect of Leela Galleria

INTERGLOBAL STEELS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12]

7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary to advert to some of the judgments of the High Courts, prior to the amendment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its decision, in Vipan Khanna v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 2201dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is invalid and void ab initio. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In the ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the assessee has challenged the reopening of assessment