PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act. Vide Para 9 of Chapter 3 of Volume-II\n(Technical), a clear procedure is devised i.e., how an approval is to be granted for draft\nassessment for passing of assessment order in search cases. According to the Manual,\nthe Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in\ntime

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, DELHI

Section 164.'. Thus, as held in CIT v. Anjum\nM.H.Ghaswala 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC), by the Constitutional Bench that\n'it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in a\nauthority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to\nexercise it only in the manner provided

PROFORM INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals for

Section 119 of the Act as noticed above, we find that while Section\n119(1) of the Act, restrains the Board from issuing any instructions to subordinate\nauthorities, which may lay down instructions of such a nature requiring the Income\nTax Authorities to make particular assessment in a particular manner or to\ninterfere with the discretion

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act towards the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is hereby, deleted. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 8. 4115/Del/2025 [AY 2019-20] is dismissed. ITA No.4067/Del/2024 (Assessee’s Appeal) for AY 2019-20 9. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. “That

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act towards the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is hereby, deleted. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 8. 4115/Del/2025 [AY 2019-20] is dismissed. ITA No.4067/Del/2024 (Assessee’s Appeal) for AY 2019-20 9. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. “That

NUMBUS PROJECTS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

148B of the Act is mechanical and without application of mind and hence, the consequent assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. ITA No. 5013/Del/2025 & Ors. Nimbus Projects Ltd. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs 20,00,000 under section 69C of the Act, being

NIMBUS PROJECTS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

148B of the Act is mechanical and without application of mind and hence, the consequent assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. ITA No. 5013/Del/2025 & Ors. Nimbus Projects Ltd. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs 20,00,000 under section 69C of the Act, being

NIMUS PROJECTS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

148B of the Act is mechanical and without application of mind and hence, the consequent assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed. ITA No. 5013/Del/2025 & Ors. Nimbus Projects Ltd. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs 20,00,000 under section 69C of the Act, being

INDUS VALLEY PROMOTERS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year- 2018-19 M/S. Indus Vally Promoters Vs. Dcit Ltd., F-6, Ground Floor Circle – 10 (1) (Right), Lajpat Nagar –Iii Delhi New Delhi-110024 Pan No. Aaaci2241L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 and Rs. 3,30,000/- under the section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the order of the ld. Assessing officer, the assesse preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 01-02-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal