MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

invested money with its specified persons. It was contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for completing the assessment and initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was illegal and 30 unjustified. It was further contended that the notice u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

invested money with its specified persons. It was contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for completing the assessment and initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was illegal and 30 unjustified. It was further contended that the notice u/s

GANESH GANGA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. He has failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. made 11,53,200/- u/s 69 of the Act, which had absolutely no application and thus the addition made of Rs. 11,53,200/- was totally unsustainable. 2.2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the burden

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. He has failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. made 11,53,200/- u/s 69 of the Act, which had absolutely no application and thus the addition made of Rs. 11,53,200/- was totally unsustainable. 2.2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the burden

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. He has failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. made 11,53,200/- u/s 69 of the Act, which had absolutely no application and thus the addition made of Rs. 11,53,200/- was totally unsustainable. 2.2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the burden

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. He has failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. made 11,53,200/- u/s 69 of the Act, which had absolutely no application and thus the addition made of Rs. 11,53,200/- was totally unsustainable. 2.2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the burden

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act which is also related to the investment in 'shares'. 6.2 The chronology of the events in the instant case is as follows. A search operation was carried out u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of the appellant (G.D. Goenka Group) on 26.07.2017. Notice u/s 148 of the Act for the instant

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., Vs Ito, Shop No.9, Plot No.51, Block-C, Ward-20(3), Mahendru Enclave, Near Hans Cinema, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 17Th August, 2011, Declaring A Loss Of Rs.20,53,019/-. The Case Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) On 10Th March, 2014, Determining The Income At Rs.20,06,714/-. Thereafter, On The Basis Of Information Received During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation In The Case Of Entry Provider Shri Anand Kumar Jain & Shri Naresh Kumar Jain & Subsequent Investigation That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Of Rs.39,00,055/-, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Recording Reasons U/S 147. Subsequently, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 26Th March, 2018 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Pcit-7, New Delhi. In Response To The Same, The Assessee Filed A Letter Stating That The Return Already Filed U/S 139 May Be Treated As The Return Filed In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. However, Another Letter Dated 7Th August, 2018 Was Issued To The Assessee Requesting Him To File The Return In Response To Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessee Ultimately Filed Its Return On 13Th August, 2018 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.4,053/-. Subsequently, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The It Act & Copies Of The Reasons Recorded Were Also Handed Over To The Assessee.

Investments Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.25 lakhs and M/s Zen Tradex Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.14 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed confirmations from the above two companies and it was submitted that it had taken loans from these two parties. In order to verify the genuineness of these two parties, summons u/s 131 were sent

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

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

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

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

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

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H 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 05/12/2025

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 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

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H 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 05/12/2025

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind. Diamond Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 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

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case for A.Y. 2016- 17.” 9. While completing the assessment addition of Rs.2,23,117/- was made as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in respect of part of the long term capital gain which was claimed as exempt under 10(38) of the Act as against the proposed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJNIL SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s 147 and 148 of the Act to the assessee including notices are hereby quashed. b. Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramachandran Vs. DCIT (32 SOT 592) has held that: “Thus, protective assessment is always successive to the substantive assessment. There may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective