HURON BUILDERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed on this preliminary

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

45) (vi) 13.12.2017 Letter of date filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. (PB page 55 to 66) (vii) 13.12.2017 Petition under section 144A filed before Jt.CIT/Addl.CIT for seeking direction on validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 for the assessment year 2013-14 (year under appeal

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

section 147 to 151 are not satisfied. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in reopening the impugned assessment U/S 147, more so when the appellant was searched u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

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 147 to 151 are not satisfied. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in reopening the impugned assessment U/S 147, more so when the appellant was searched u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

147, 148 and 149 in\nthe 45 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out\nbetween 'issue of notice' and 'service of notice' under the\n1961 Act. Section 149 prescribe the period of limitation. It\ncategorically prescribes that no notice under section 149\nshall be issued after the prescribed limitation\nhas lapsed.Section 148(1) provides for service of notice

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

45,83,190/- for the Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. The return filed was subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2011. Thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2016 was issued upon the assessee seeking to reopen the completed assessment. The re-assessment order was accordingly finalized after making

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

u/s 148 which are as under: GOA No. 3 to 3.4-Validity of re-assessment proceedings 24. In the present case, reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer vide notice dated 31.03.2014, ie, much beyond the period of 4 years and almost at the fag-end of the overall limitation period

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

u/s 148 which are as under: GOA No. 3 to 3.4-Validity of re-assessment proceedings 24. In the present case, reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer vide notice dated 31.03.2014, ie, much beyond the period of 4 years and almost at the fag-end of the overall limitation period

MAHESHWARI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

section 68 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was also correct in upholding the same after detailed logical analysis of documentary evidence, allegations of the AO and explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere the findings affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition u/s

SUNRISE PORPBUILD PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O without considering the fact that the reasons u/s 148 were recorded merely

SUNRISE PROPBUILD PVT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1258/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. V Assistant Commissioner Of House No. B-4, 1St Floor, Shop S Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, No. 25, Ashirward Complex, Faridabad, Village Pitampura, New Delhi- Haryana-121001 110034 Pan: Aapcs2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

reassessment Sunrise Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. 6.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O without considering the fact that the reasons u/s 148 were recorded merely

VRC TOWNSHIP P LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

reassessment order invalid”. 3.4. In the case of Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd., 329 ITR 110 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : “No independent application of mind by the Assessing officer but acting under information from Inv. Wing - Notice U/s. 147 to be quashed”. 3.5. The assessee also submitted that assessment is barred by time