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

37,765,215 and Rs. 1,70,00,000/- by making investment in two capital assets (new property), where as deduction u/s 54 is allowable for only one property. In view of this, the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54, which is liable to be withdrawn and taxed. Page 6 of 53 In view of this, I have reason

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

37,765,215 and Rs. 1,70,00,000/- by making investment in two capital assets (new property), where as deduction u/s 54 is allowable for only one property. In view of this, the assessee has claimed excess deduction u/s 54, which is liable to be withdrawn and taxed. Page 6 of 53 In view of this, I have reason

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

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), 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

37 "Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is valid or not where the Assessing Officer made addition independently of other income which does not form the subject matter of reopening and where addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of reasons recorded

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

37 "Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is valid or not where the Assessing Officer made addition independently of other income which does not form the subject matter of reopening and where addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of reasons recorded

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

37,186/-.\nThus, here again AO did not apply his own mind and simply followed\nintimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and Rs.8,35,000/- was shortly allowed. The\nreason given in the intimation at Page 22 by referring to 3 TAN Numbers as\nalso mentioned at page No. S of the paper-book i.e. computation of Income\nwhere

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

147 and for the remaining two\nyears i.e., Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 assessment orders were passed\nu/s 143(3) of the Act. By Finance Act 2021, section 148 has been amended and as\nper the new section limitation were provided in section 149 where section 149(1) (b)\nfirst proviso provided as under:\n“Provided that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

reassessment proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 R/W Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction?” 3. In order to appreciate the legal and factual points at issue in the present appeal, the facts attending this matter need to be marshalled at the outset. The respondent is a cooperative society manufacturing fertilizers. During the assessment year

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 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

M/S. CHITRAKOOT MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 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

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

1), the authorities are bereft of the powers under other sections of the Act including sec 147/148 of the Act. Recently, on the exactly identical facts where reassessment proceedings, based on the seized material from Sh S.K. Jain Group initiated u/s 147/148 of IT Act, were quashed in view of Section 153C being independent code in the decisions

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

1), the authorities are bereft of the powers under other sections of the Act including sec 147/148 of the Act. Recently, on the exactly identical facts where reassessment proceedings, based on the seized material from Sh S.K. Jain Group initiated u/s 147/148 of IT Act, were quashed in view of Section 153C being independent code in the decisions

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

37,28,085/ which was restricted to total income, hence the Nil taxable income. The provisions of section 115JB were applied on the declared book profits of Rs.67,08,71,105/ and the assessee company paid Minimum alternate tax of Rs.5,16,76,089/ . 3. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.12.2006 at an income

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

37,28,085/ which was restricted to total income, hence the Nil taxable income. The provisions of section 115JB were applied on the declared book profits of Rs.67,08,71,105/ and the assessee company paid Minimum alternate tax of Rs.5,16,76,089/ . 3. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.12.2006 at an income

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

In the result, all the appeals for

147 and for the remaining two\nyears i.e., Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 assessment orders were passed\nu/s 143(3) of the Act. By Finance Act 2021, section 148 has been amended and as\nper the new section limitation were provided in section 149 where section 149(1) (b)\nfirst proviso provided as under:\n“Provided that

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

147 and for the remaining two\nyears i.e., Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 assessment orders were passed\nu/s 143(3) of the Act. By Finance Act 2021, section 148 has been amended and as\nper the new section limitation were provided in section 149 where section 149(1) (b)\nfirst proviso provided as under:\n“Provided that

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

In the result, all the appeals for

147 and for the remaining two\nyears i.e., Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 assessment orders were passed\nu/s 143(3) of the Act. By Finance Act 2021, section 148 has been amended and as\nper the new section limitation were provided in section 149 where section 149(1) (b)\nfirst proviso provided as under:\n“Provided that

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

In the result, all the appeals for

147 and for the remaining two\nyears i.e., Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2022-23 assessment orders were passed\nu/s 143(3) of the Act. By Finance Act 2021, section 148 has been amended and as\nper the new section limitation were provided in section 149 where section 149(1) (b)\nfirst proviso provided as under:\n“Provided that