“Income-tax Officer”

HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhcl Infosystems Ltd Vs. Dcit 806, 96, Nehru Place, Circle-25(2) South Delhi 110019 New Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach 2420 C Appellant .. Respondent

Trib.)  Siemens Ltd. v. DCIT: [2023] 199 ITD 470 (Mum Trib) 9. Reliance was placed on:-  Ritz Theatre Vs. Income-tax Officer: [2010] 194 taxman 544 (Delhi)  Jazzy Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer: ITA No.4560/Mum/2014 10. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that, initial assessment order was against

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

Trib.) Sanjay Kumar Damjibhai Gangani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 157 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) Hemantkumar Mansukhlal Soni, HUF Vs. Income-tax Officer 9. Ld. Departmental representative relied on orders of Departmental Authorities. Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala ... basis and contrary to the evidences produced by the assessee. 12. A Coordinate Bench in ITA No.752/Del/2024 titled as Reena Kumari Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 170 taxmann.com 430 (Delhi-Trib.) held as under:- 4. Heard and perused the record. The main issues involved is alleged bogus long term capital

SATISH CHANDRA TYAGI,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Satish Chandra Tyagi, Commissioner Of Income Tax A-601, Lakevie Apptt. Plot (Appeals), Hans Bhawan, No.17, Paschim Vihar, Vs Wing,-2, I. P. Estate, Sunder Vihar West, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110087 Pan-Abgpt2521E Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri Satish Chandra Tyagi, Assessee In Person. Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

revised limit as prescribed. In terms of these observations the appeal of the assessee is allowed CASE LAWS 1. Vijay Kumar Jain VS Income-tax Officer,Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. 2. Govind Chhatwani VS CIT (Appeals), JAIPUR 3. Ram Charan Gupta VS ITO WARD 4(2) JAIPUR 4. Neelam

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

that the purchases were\nnot made by the assessee, when there are material on record to prove\notherwise.\n7.5 In the case of INCOME-TAX OFFICER V. GHANSHYAM STEEL TRADERS\n[1999] 107 TAXMAN 126 (AHD.) disallowance of purchases was made\non the basis of statement of seller in which

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

have done so and must\nhave found that the account books supported the claims for deductions,\nwhen the deductions were disallowed, by the Income-tax Officer on the\nground that detailed information regarding them was not available, justice\nwas not done to the assessee.\n\nIt was not possible

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

have done so and must\nhave found that the account books supported the claims for deductions,\nwhen the deductions were disallowed, by the Income-tax Officer on the\nground that detailed information regarding them was not available, justice\nwas not done to the assessee.\n\nIt was not possible

MANOJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44 (6) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

JUDICIAL MEMBER\nManoj Kumar\nITA No.164/DEL/2026\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nC/O Dr. Ravi Gupta, B-41\nLGF Kailash Colony New Delhi\nVs. Income-Tax Officer Ward-44(6) (1) New Delhi\nPAN No. AHLPK1340B\n(APPELLANT)\n(RESPONDENT)\nAppellant by\nRespondent by\nSh. Mohit Choudhary, CA\nSh. Harish Choudhary