DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. VDH CHEM TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3814/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and declared the assessment order illegal. The pendency of an SLP against the High Court's judgment did not affect its validity.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO under Section 68 and for unaccounted commission. The AO's assessment order was passed under Section 153C.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made under Section 68 and for unaccounted commission, and whether a pending SLP against a High Court judgment impacts its applicability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Madhav Kapur, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT-DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 27.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3814/Del/2026, A.Y. 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. VDH Chem Tech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, H-5, Near Sanjay Park Central Circle-26, Shakarpur, Room No. 323, Delhi-110092, Income Tax Officer, Delhi ARA Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AADCV5897J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Madhav Kapur, Advocate Respondent by : Shri K. Hauthang, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the Department is against order dated 05.12.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-25 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3814/Del/2026 VDH Chem Tech Pvt. Ltd.

as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer / DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 153C of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15.

2.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 45,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 1,35,000/- made on account of unaccounted commission @ 3% on Rs. 45,00,000/- made by Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. was required to be followed in accordance with the procedural flexibility outlined in CBDT Circular No. 2/2018 dated 15.02.2018. The said judgment was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3.

Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent/assessee relied on the impugned order.

4.

From examination of the record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 05.12.2025, by following ratio of Jurisdictional High Court in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. had held the impugned assessment order dated 21.02.2024 to be illegal. Mere pendency of SLP against the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court is of no consequence. Therefore, the grounds of appeal being devoid of merit are rejected.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3814/Del/2026 VDH Chem Tech Pvt. Ltd.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.07.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →