DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. EMERALD VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3685/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for appeals and that the issue of share capital had been held as genuine by a coordinate bench. The Revenue opposed the CIT(A)'s findings and the admission of additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable considering the revised monetary limits for appeals and the existence of a favorable precedent on the issue of share capital.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Naveen D Gupta, CA, Shri Ashu Goel, CA
For Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT DR
Hearing: 11.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3684/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No.3685/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) DCIT, Central Circle 26, vs. Emerald Vyapaar Private Limited, New Delhi. Shop No.1, Plot No.6, Ground Floor, Kumar House, BLK-D, Prashant Vihar, Delhi - 110 085. (PAN : AAACE5641A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Naveen D Gupta, CA Shri Ashu Goel, CA REVENUE BY : Shri K. Hauthang, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2026 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 18.12.2025 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17.

2 ITA No.3684/DEL/2026 ITA No.3685/DEL/2026

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect in the appeals filed by the Revenue is below Rs. 60 lakhs. The CBDT in its Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 has recently revised the monetary limit for filing of the departmental appeal to the ITAT at Rs. 60 lakhs. He has further submitted that even though issue involved is relating to share capital alleged as accommodation entry but the relevant share capital issued by M/s. Vagmi Financials Pvt. Ltd.. He also submitted that the assessee had already filed the relevant documents to prove the onus on its part as prescribed u/s 68 of the Act. Further, he submitted that the ITAT, Delhi had held that the above share capital and loan from M/s. Vagmi Financials Pvt. Ltd. is genuine and not accommodation entry in the case of Neelkanth Township Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.604/Del/2025 dated 30.04.2026. Therefore, this issue will not fall under exceptions.

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue opposed the findings of ld. CIT (A) and also should not have entertained the additional evidences.

4.

In view of the above position, we noticed that the tax effect in appeals preferred by the Revenue is below Rs.60 lakhs and also not falling under exception based on the decision of coordinate Bench in the case of Neelkanth Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, we deem it proper

3 ITA No.3684/DEL/2026 ITA No.3685/DEL/2026

to dismiss the appeals of the Revenue in the light of the latest Circular No.09/2024 of the CBDT dated 17.09.2024, as not maintainable.

6.

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19.08.2026 TS

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →