“Section 2(41)”

VIBHUTI BHATNAGAR,GURGOAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), GURGAON (HARYANA), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.6495/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13) Vibuti Bhatnagar, D-223, First Floor, Sector-30, Jalvayu Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Antpb-5936-A बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Prem Rajpal & Pulak Rajpal, Advocates, (Through Vc) प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.02.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 166 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 166 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

SHARAD PANWAR,SHAHDARA, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIKAS BHAWAN, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3927/ िद"ी /2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Sharad Panwar, B-527, Mig Dda Flats, East Of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bcrpp-9210-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), R. No. 317, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : None Department By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28.06.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 288 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

LALIT KAPOOR,ROHTAK vs. CIT APPEAL, INCOME-TAX ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3927/ िद"ी /2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Sharad Panwar, B-527, Mig Dda Flats, East Of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bcrpp-9210-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), R. No. 317, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : None Department By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28.06.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 288 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

ABHINAV MALIK,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-31(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

correct. The section clearly lays down that the Clause shall not apply to any sum of money or property received from any 'relative'. Section 2(41) of the Act defines 'relative' in relation to an individual means the husband, wife, brother or sister or any lineal ascendant or descendant

NARAYAN DAS TALREJA,N.S.M. , AZADPUR, DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2564/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2018-19) Narain Dass Talreja, (Through Kishore Talreja Lr) B-206, New Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi-110033 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Acspt-4460-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri K.P Ganguly & Narender Kumar, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.07.2023, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Commission Agent & Is Engaged In Trading Of Fresh Fruits. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Income Of Rs.9,30,120/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Found That In Violation Of Provisions Of U/S. 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) The Assessee Has Made Payment In Cash In Excess Of Rs.10,000/- To A Single Person & There Are Several Such Payments. Hence, He Made Disallowance U/S. 40A(3) Of The Act On Following Transactions:

been made merely on the basis of comparative commission payments made by the assessee to his son and his brother. As per section 2(41) of the Act, brother and son both fall within the definition of relative. Hence, the AO has erred in coming to conclusion that excessive payments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. USHA GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 826/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Usha Gupta, Circle-28(1), D-7/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipg0549G Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

inquiry, creditworthiness of the lender is not verified.” 3. Ishwar Chand Rs.6,00,000  Mr. Ishwar chand was real brother [relative as per section 2(41)] of the assessee as income Tax Act-1961.  The assessee has received Rs.11 lacs from his brother Late Sh. Ishwar Chand in two transactions

HATCH TACT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

submitted that the ld.PCIT has erroneously held that the books of account were not maintained for whole of the period, because as per section 2(41) of the 5 Companies Act, 1956, the assessee was required to maintain account upto 31st March of the next following year in case

SHANKER TRADING (P) LTD. vs. THE CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons