VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

reassessment on the borrowed information which was not examined by himself before issuing notice u/s 148 which was on last day when it was becoming barred by limitation. Whereas the information was received by him in 2013 and in 4 years thereafter the AO did not enquire any thing from the assessee or collected any material to arrive at reason

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue therefore they are taken together for consideration. 9. Before us, Ld. AR submits that the AO has made the addition by holding the purchases as bogus against which first appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A). As per ld. AR, the AO has taken a plausible view

ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

reassessment u/s 147. If CIT(A) tries to examine those issues which have not been considered by the AO, sec. 147 as well as sec. 263 will become redundant and the conditions for their operation will be nullified. This view is fully supported by various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court and Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT as under

MANOJ KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

147 of the Act by alleging that the purchases claimed to have been made from M/s. Soni Textiles of INR 11,47,500/-, is bogus and thereafter, the AO referred the statements of the persons managing and controlling various firms including M/s. Soni Textiles and disallowed the purchase of INR 11,47,500/- u/s

HECTOR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

147 or 148\nof the Act and those powers are saved.”\n10.\nInsofar as, the statement recorded during the course of\nsearch of other person, stand of the revenue that the same has to\nbe considered as incriminating material, is also not tenable in the\nlight of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of law under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the Petitioner cannot defend

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

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

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

PACL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 147 of the Act. The reason to believe has been appropriately understood by the assessing officer and there is material on the basis of which the notice was issued”. Keeping in view the legal proposition referred above, I am of the considered view that, the information received by the AO from office of CIT-V, Delhi in which inter

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PACL INDIA LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 147 of the Act. The reason to believe has been appropriately understood by the assessing officer and there is material on the basis of which the notice was issued”. Keeping in view the legal proposition referred above, I am of the considered view that, the information received by the AO from office of CIT-V, Delhi in which inter

GYAN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 10(2) , NEW DELHI

147 for re-\nassessment of all facts disclosed in the assessment u/s 143(3) is bad in law and\ndeserves to be quashed. The reopening of completed assessment is bad in law and\nrequires to be set aside.\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O has\nerred in making additions u/s 69B

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

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), were completed in the case of the assessee on 31/12/2010 making additions of Rs. 1,68,29,316/- under section 68 of the Act and simultaneously not allowed to set off the business loss of the current year or earlier years on the ground that

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), were completed in the case of the assessee on 31/12/2010 making additions of Rs. 1,68,29,316/- under section 68 of the Act and simultaneously not allowed to set off the business loss of the current year or earlier years on the ground that

ACIT CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAX VENTURES INVESTMENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Acit, Vs Max Venture Investment Holdings Circle-16(2), Pvt.Ltd., Max House, New Delhi. 1 Dr. Jha Marg, Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaacd0213H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Respondent By S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv., Rohan Khare, Adv. & Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022

147 r/w 143(3) of the Act, whereby the share application money was added in the income of the Respondent being unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Vide the said order, the identity and creditworthiness of Mr. Analjit Singh was accepted, however, the addition was made on the premise that the “genuineness” of the transaction

RAAKHI AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10

69B of the Act. The assessee submitted the reply vide letter dated 23.12.2016 in which it was stated that the assessee has sold the said shares during the year for a sum of Rs.7,26,038.55 and denied having purchased the shares during the year under consideration or any other year. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had denied

AQUAKIOSK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2012-13 Aquakiosk India Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Bh-2C, Munirka, New Delhi – 67 C.R. Building, (Pan: Aadca5448C) New Delhi (Respondent) (Appellant)

reassessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Various notices u/s. 142(1) issued to the appellant and thereafter assessment u/s. 144 /147 of the Act was completed on 27.11.2019 at an income of Rs. 14,03,320/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has dismissed the appeal