MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

ab-initio and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant had filed a return of income on 29th July, 2005. The said return was processed vide intimation dated 10th January, 2006 issued u/s 143(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 21st July

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

ab-initio and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant had filed a return of income on 29th July, 2005. The said return was processed vide intimation dated 10th January, 2006 issued u/s 143(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 21st July

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

ab-initio and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant had filed a return of income on 29th July, 2005. The said return was processed vide intimation dated 10th January, 2006 issued u/s 143(1) of the Act and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 dated 21st July

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68,21,64,860. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the assessing officer under section 144C(13), having been passed beyond limitation provided in terms of Section 144C(13) read with section 153(3) of the Act, is illegal being barred by limitation, void

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

section 1448 of IT Act, the case was duly transferred to the jurisdiction AO, who has no previous idea about the assessment proceedings in the case. However it is pointed out, that, even during the DRP stage and even after providing opportunity by AO, the assessee could not submit any evidence with respect to bank statement of assessee

MANOJ KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

68 of the Act, when 3 ITA No. 1627/Del./2016 admittedly such amount was not found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income electronically on 15/10/2010, declaring total income of ₹ 18,32,891/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ab initio and should be quashed. 3. Levy of Capital gains tax amounting to Rs. 1,02,47,36,42,264 3.1. The AO has erred in and the DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the AO by holding that the gain, if any, arising to the Appellant on account of the sale of shares of Cairn

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

ab-initio. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the arguments of the assessee and held that the Revenue cannot argue that the provisions of section 143(2) hold true only in cases where the return is filed by the assessee. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the procedure prescribed in the event of filing of return of income will also

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

ab initio “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 was by Ld A.0 was in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act; 1.1 That on the facts

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

35. Further from the perusal of observations at page 79 onwards of the order of ld. CIT(A) we find that CIT(A) has provided numerous opportunities to the AO for rebuttal/objections however, the AO has not availed any of the opportunity therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has made the enquiries in terms of the power conferred upon

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

35. Further from the perusal of observations at page 79 onwards of the order of ld. CIT(A) we find that CIT(A) has provided numerous opportunities to the AO for rebuttal/objections however, the AO has not availed any of the opportunity therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has made the enquiries in terms of the power conferred upon

CIT vs. JH FINVEST PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct'Theappea|scanbeentertained only

CIT vs. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct'Theappea|scanbeentertained only

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct'Theappea|scanbeentertained only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHAM MOHAN PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 2011:DHC:12088-DB €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 2011:DHC:12104-DB €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY FOILS P.LTD.

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct'Theappea|scanbeentertained only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY FOILS P.LTD.

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

35 of 58 iTA No.972 of 2009 2011:DHC:12058-DB €b ITA No.972 of 2009 (iii) The order of the AO(s) had merged in the order oftheCIT(A)andinSomeofthecasesbeforeus and before the CiT(A), the assessees had succeeded. (iv) This court is acting as appellate court and has to act within the limitationb provided under Section 26AoftheAct

M/S. SRI BALAJI FORGINGS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

ab initio. Proceedings u/s. 148 are therefore dropped. Relevant approval from Pr. CIT is placed on record.” 6.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that thereafter the Ld. Pr. CIT issued show cause notice under section 263 of the I.T. Act dated 17.01.2017. The assessee objected to the same before the Ld. Pr. CIT. Learned Counsel for the Assessee