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

147 / 143(3) as passed without jurisdiction, mere change of opinion and barred by limitation thus bad in law and void-ab- initio. 11. Before us, the ld. AR argued that the assessment in the case of the assessee was originally completed u/s 143(3) and the reassessment proceedings had been initiated in terms of the notice issued

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits received from M/s Sunrise Prop Build Pvt. Ltd. 11. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Sunlight Tour and Travels (P.) Ltd. (169 taxmann.com 673) “17. The said view has also been consistently followed by this Court including recent decisions in Naveen Infradevelopers& Engineers

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits received from M/s Sunrise Prop Build Pvt. Ltd. 11. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Sunlight Tour and Travels (P.) Ltd. (169 taxmann.com 673) “17. The said view has also been consistently followed by this Court including recent decisions in Naveen Infradevelopers& Engineers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

u/s 143(3). 5. In this regard, the provisions of Section 153C are as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re- computation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

u/s 143(3). 5. In this regard, the provisions of Section 153C are as under: “Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and re- computation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which

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

260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

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

260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) questioning the validity of order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) dated 18th May, 2007 whereby two appeals of the appellant herein, involving common issues pertaining to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 have been dismissed

KUBER KHANPAN UDYOG PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/- declared by the appellant. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT (A) New Delhi has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment that could not have been re-opened u/s 147/148 as no valid reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer to establish any satisfaction on his part

KUBER FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/- declared by the appellant. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT (A) New Delhi has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment that could not have been re-opened u/s 147/148 as no valid reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer to establish any satisfaction on his part

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

147 of the act was without satisfying the statutory preconditions (without any tangible material) as envisaged in aforesaid Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted

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

147 of the act was without satisfying the statutory preconditions (without any tangible material) as envisaged in aforesaid Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted

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

147 of the act was without satisfying the statutory preconditions (without any tangible material) as envisaged in aforesaid Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

260 (Delhi) and that of the Gujarat High Court in KamleshbhaiDharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III (2013) 263 CTR (Gui) 362 which according to the Revenue held to the contrary. 29. The Supreme Court noted that the appeals relating to four of the AYs i.e. 2000-01 to 2003-04 were covered by the notice under Section 153C

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

260 (Delhi) and that of the Gujarat High Court in KamleshbhaiDharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III (2013) 263 CTR (Gui) 362 which according to the Revenue held to the contrary. 29. The Supreme Court noted that the appeals relating to four of the AYs i.e. 2000-01 to 2003-04 were covered by the notice under Section 153C

CHANDRA VIDYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member

260 (Delhi) and that of the Gujarat High Court in KamleshbhaiDharamshibhai Patel v. Commissioner of Income Tax-III (2013) 263 CTR (Gui) 362 which according to the Revenue held to the contrary. 29. The Supreme Court noted that the appeals relating to four of the AYs i.e. 2000-01 to 2003-04 were covered by the notice under Section 153C

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment proceedings finalized u/s. 148 of the Act, is therefore, held to be invalid. 5. The brief facts leading to the case is this, that the assessee has furnished the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 25.09.2011. The reasons was recorded u/s. 147 of the Act to this effect that income to the tune

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

260 (Del) - CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd: [2013] 215 Taxman 495 (Del) - JSRS Udyog Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) - Vatika Ltd. vs. ITO: [2013] 357 ITR 170 (Del) 13. In view of the above, it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation in terms of proviso to section 147

RAJESH KUMAR,NARNAUL vs. ITO WARD - 2, NARNAUL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1465/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Krishan Nagar, Narnaul, Ward-2, Mohindergarh, Narnaul, Narnaul, Haryana-123001 Haryana-123001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axqpk2406F Assessee By : Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca & Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2022

u/s 147, the established jurisprudence is as under: 1. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom) [IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. JET AIRWAYS (I.) LTD. DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD and J. P. DEVADHAR JJ. April 12, 2010. Section(s): Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 147 Assessment Year: 1994-95 ,1995-96 RE-ASSESSMENT — SCOPE OF POWER