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

reassessment is sought Held "............. There is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section laying down as a condition for the initiation of the proceedings that the reasons which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed under s. 34 must also be communicated to the assessee. The requirement regarding the communication of the reasons

WARM FORGINGS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1148/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Warm Forgings P. Ltd., Dcit Plot No.117 & 118, A-3, Vs. Circle 27(1), Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aabcc7684C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 147 and 148 of the I.T. Act and notice u/s. 148 of the Act and proceeding u/s. 147 are illegal and void ab initio. Therefore,, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 08.08.2017, the reassessment in question is accordingly quashed. Since I have already quashed the reassessment, there is no need to adjudicate the other grounds

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

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 2 of the Assessee

PASSION REALTECH PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ;ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 2 of the Assessee

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and issuance of said notice u/s. 148, therefore, our conclusion drawn for assessment year 2013-14 (supra) would apply mutatis mutandis to the identical and similar grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of assessee in other 06 appeals. Consequently, grounds no. 2 to 2.2 of the assessee in other 06 appeals

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

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 proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 7 of the Assessee. Sunrise

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 proceedings which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f M/s GKN Driveshafts Vs. ITO (259 ITR 19). The Ld. Counsel has also relied on following Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the Tribunal and sought for allowing Ground No. 7 of the Assessee. Sunrise

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

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

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

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

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