MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 is bad in law and void inter alia as: 3 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 (a) there was no legitimate material to form a reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment. (b) the assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law, mechanical and without due consideration. (c) the observations of CIT (A) vide

DHARA SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2012-13 Dhara Singh Ito, Ward 1(2), C/O Rupinder Kumar Vs. Ghaziabad Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh Advocate, Ab-1A/22, Sector-51, Noida -201301 (Pan: Czjps0155A) (Assessee) (Respondent)

50C of the Act. Accordingly we hold that there was no “reasons to believe” that income of the assessee had escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the instant assessment year. One of the contention raised before us that in absence of service of notice under section 148 of the Act, there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

reassessment can be made. The word ‘assess’ in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word ‘reassessee’ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment u/s 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately

KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

reassessment order has been passed without issuing and serving the mandatory notice U/s 148 and thus assumption of jurisdiction U/s 147 by the Id. AO is bad in law. Smt. Krishna Devi vs. ITO 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in confirming the action of Ld. AO that the agriculture land which is sold

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.S. CHAWLA & SONGS (HUF), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

2,18,88,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act alleging unexplained money received by the assessee in respect of sale of property at “8, Kachnar Marg, DLF Gurgaon” to Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora. The Assessing Officer while adjudicating the matter held that since the additions were made in the hands

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

reassessment proceedings on the premise that the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued and the case

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

reassessment proceedings on the premise that the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could not be the Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) of the Act unless specifically directed under section 120(4)(b) of the Act to perform the functions of an AO and in the case of the Appellant, no such directions had been issued and the case

SATISH KUMAR TANDON,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

u/s. 50C(1) of the Act and held that the value adopted for stamp duty purposes shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of such transfer. Hence, the AO assessed full value of the consideration as per the circle rates and added Rs. 16,69,167/- to the total income

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

NARENDRA KUMAR GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

50C r.w.s. 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Owing to the reason to believe, that the income of the assessee escaped assessment with regard to the capital gains arising out of the sale of immovable property namely “Modern Service Station” situated at Rampuri, Muzaffarnagar. The 5 Narendra Kumar Gill Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-1(2), Muzaffarnagar issued notice

DELIGHT PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

reassessment 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. AO without considering the fact that the reasons u/s 148 were recorded merely on the basis of suspicion

MIKADO REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

50C of the Act and cost of land parcels/loss 7 claimed by the assessee of Rs. 37,27,570/- as land cost covered by panchayat written off, hence the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in view of provision of section 263 read with Explanation 2

RANJU DHINGRA,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

In the result, in the aforesaid terms, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2007-08

147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act as valid and legal and computed the income of the Assessee as under: Market value of the sold off property house No.88,Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. as discussed above Rs.93,70,000/- Less: Cost of inflation as per Indexation price (Rs.4,32,000 x 519/331

NIPUN AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

Accordingly, the additional ground of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without obtaining valid approval/sanction u/s 151 as per law. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3)/148, is bad in law and against

SANDEEP KUMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.P. Jain[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Sandeep Kumar Vs. The Income-Tax Officer S/O Late Yogendar Singh Ward – 1(3) L/H Late Smt. Javitri Devi Ghaziabad R/O Village Noor Nagar Ghaziabad, U.P. Pan : Cfipd 6068 N [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2017 Assessee By : Shri Hiren Mehta, Ca Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, Ca Shri M.K. Madan, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit - Dr

147 of the Act. Issue notice u/s 148 of the Act.” 4. It was further brought to our notice at page 9 of the Sale Deed where circle rate is mentioned at front page of sale deed at Rs. 8,73,80,000/- and at Paper Book page 49 it is mentioned as 13,60,00,000/- whereas the sale

KUNWAR PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

Bench: learned first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

2 of the Purti Parab 3/4 420-WP-3224-2019.doc petition, Respondent No.1 simply says that these are factual in nature and the notice under Section 148 dated 26th March, 2019 and the order disposing the objections and the notice dated 22nd October, 2019 are issued in pursuance of the objective of completing reassessment in accordance with the procedures laid down. On this

SHRI INAMUL HAQ,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That, the assessment order passed by the non-jurisdictional officer, therefore, the assessment order passed is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. That, no application of mind by the assessing officer while recording the alleged satisfaction and failed to establish