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

147 of the Act. It will be appreciated that the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IC was examined in great detail at the time of original assessment and assessment pursuant to order u/s 264 after examining various replies and details filed during the course of assessment and as such the impugned reassessment proceedings are merely on account of change

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

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

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

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

90. He further submitted that the Impugned orders of authorities below need be set aside as the 79 ITA.No.4257/Del./2019 Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. reassessment proceedings have been initiated without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr. CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and without application of mind

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

90. He further submitted that the Impugned orders of authorities below need be set aside as the 61 ITA.No.1503/Del./2017 VRC Township P. Ltd., Delhi. reassessment proceedings have been initiated without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr. CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and without application of mind

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD

147 as also certain issues on merits which were decided against it by the CIT(Appeals). The Revenue‟s appeal related to the decision of the CIT(Appeals) in respect of the premium on sale of quota and the DEPB income, both for the purposes of Section 80HHC. The Tribunal took up the appeal of the assessee and examined

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

90. He further submitted that the Impugned orders of authorities below need be set aside as the 59 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. reassessment proceedings have been initiated without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr. CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and without application of mind

MADHU APARTMENT PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

90. He further submitted that the Impugned orders of authorities below need be set aside as the 59 ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 M/s. Madhu Apartment Private Limited, Delhi. reassessment proceedings have been initiated without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr. CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and without application of mind

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 147(1) it is a mandatory requirement that the Assessing Officer should have "reasons to belief" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons must be self-evident and must speak for themselves." [Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd 2016) 384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] (iv) Mere receipt of information from

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 147(1) it is a mandatory requirement that the Assessing Officer should have "reasons to belief" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons must be self-evident and must speak for themselves." [Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd 2016) 384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] (iv) Mere receipt of information from

SHARK PACKAGING (INDIA) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed only on ground no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 147(1) it is a mandatory requirement that the Assessing Officer should have "reasons to belief" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The reasons must be self-evident and must speak for themselves." [Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. G & G Pharma India Ltd 2016) 384 ITR 147 (Delhi)] (iv) Mere receipt of information from

CHAMPION BUILDER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

90,673/- (Page 82 of PB). o CIT(A) reliance on NRA Iron & Steel decision is not relevant to the facts of the case because there the issue was of share capital and the shareholders could not be traced and some shareholders were not existing whereas in the case of the assessee all the details have been filed and nowhere

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

90,40,000/-. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged legality of reassessment proceeding as well as addition on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceeding on the ground that 3 there was no tangible material before the Assessing Officer to form reasons to believe and it was based merely on the ‘change of the opinion

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 pursuant to the return filed by the 6 Krishna Kumar Makrania assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Later the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 28.12.2018 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 69,11,309/- had no legs to stand and had to be declared

BEHAT HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

90. He further submitted that the Impugned orders of authorities below need be set aside as the reassessment proceedings have been initiated without obtaining a subjective satisfaction by the Pr. CIT Delhi-7, New Delhi as the approval u/s 151 is mechanical and without application of mind. 8. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that the reassessment proceedings initiated

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, the same 44 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly, set aside the Order of Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment order itself is bad in law, therefore, the same 44 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 cannot be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. Only valid re-assessment order can be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly, set aside the Order of Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash