“appeal before the tribunal”

Sri Rani Shakti Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rani Shakti Roller Vs. Jcit (Osd) Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Delhi C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Pan No.Aabcs5954K (Appellant) (Respondent)

appeal before Ld. CIT (A) who vide his order dated 29-03- 2025 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A R of the assessee submitted that the order was passed without giving the opportunity of the giving heard to the assessee

Avisha Cedit Capital Limited, Connaught Place vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-28, Delhi, Jhandewalan

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

failed to explain the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 3. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. CIT, DR submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for condone the delay in filling the appeal

Mir Singh, Bahadurgarh vs. ITO Ward 3 Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, the instant assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2016-17

expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. As regards, addition of Rs. 8,08,245/- calculating GP @4% is concerned, I note that during the appellate proceedings, in respect

Nanak Chand Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Nanak Chand Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Nanak Chand Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Nanak Chand Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabd Haryana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Nanak Chand Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

then A.O. and the approving authority, (which has been filed much after the granting of the approval and at the stage of second Appeal before the Tribunal), upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the present case in hand is factually distinguishable. In view of the judgement

Income Tax Officer 58(3), Vikas Bhawan vs. Prithvi Raj Kandoi (HUF), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer 58(3), Vs. Prithvi Raj Kandoi (Huf) Room No. 317-D, 175, Ram Vihar, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, Vikas Marg Extn, New Delhi – 110 002 Surajmal Vihar, East Delhi (Pan: Aaahp3425Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

providing arranged capital gain / loss. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

Simmi Batra, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-32(5), New Delhi

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

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 25.06.20204 dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the NFAC

Saket Agarwal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -45(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Saket Agrawal, Vs Ito, 392/1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-45(2), Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi Delhi-110085. Pan-Aavpa3410D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10489/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 10,02,940/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetization & Due To The Survey Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee.

order, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated 10.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Acc India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

impugned order dated 16.02.2023 has deleted the additions made by AO. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, it is noted that in each ground the Revenue has mentioned that in deleting each

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Satya Prakash Gupta, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3925/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income V Satya Prakash Gupta Tax, S H-3/1, Model Town, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Part-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aahpg0717H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Adv.Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’

involved in the present Appeal of the Revenue is Rs. 49,88,400/- which is less than the monetary limit to file the Appeal before the Tribunal as per the CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 3 DCIT Vs. Satya Prakash Gupta 17/09/2024. However, it is the contention ... present appeal filed by the Revenue is Rs. 49,88,400/- which is less than the monetary limit to file the Appeal before the Tribunal as per the CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024 dated 17/09/2024. The only 4 DCIT Vs. Satya Prakash Gupta question to be decided is whether

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Meerut

In the result, the instant assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2013-14

confirmation letter has not been obtained from them. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

impugned order dated 16.02.2023 has deleted the additions made by AO. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, it is noted that in each ground the Revenue has mentioned that in deleting each

ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi vs. Threepence Craft, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Tribunal and this was communicated to the assessee later and the assessee took steps immediately to engage another Counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this process delay of 38 days occurred in filing the appeal and therefore the assessee prayed that the delay since neither willful ... order and directing the AO to frame the assessment afresh after conducting enquiries and verification. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.” As is evident from the above the AO moved a proposal u/s 263 of the Act proposing to annul the assessment order

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Tribunal and this was communicated to the assessee later and the assessee took steps immediately to engage another Counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this process delay of 38 days occurred in filing the appeal and therefore the assessee prayed that the delay since neither willful ... order and directing the AO to frame the assessment afresh after conducting enquiries and verification. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.” As is evident from the above the AO moved a proposal u/s 263 of the Act proposing to annul the assessment order

Shelender Kumar Jain, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-55(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shelender Kumar Jain, Acit, Circle-55(1), 76-B, Dda Flats, Jhilmil Delhi Colony, Bihari Colony, Vs Shahdara, Delhi-110095 Pan-Adjpj4984G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. & Shri Gurjeet Singh, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

rent paid to the extent of 50%. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the same partly for which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds; 4. On hearing both sides, we find that primarily the ld. Authorized Representatives of the both sides, rely the cases

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. N.S.Software, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1833 और 1834 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

assessee’s claim and have been allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act to the assessee. The Department carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal for each of the assessment years. The Department’s appeal for each of the assessment years were dismissed by the Tribunal. (A.Ys ... assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act was accepted by the CIT(A). The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) dismissed Revenue’s appeal. In the impugned assessment year, the Revenue has assailed the order

ACIT, Circle-52(1), New Delhi vs. 12, Ring Road Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.1833 और 1834 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2013-14 और 2014-15)

assessee’s claim and have been allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act to the assessee. The Department carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal for each of the assessment years. The Department’s appeal for each of the assessment years were dismissed by the Tribunal. (A.Ys ... assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act was accepted by the CIT(A). The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) dismissed Revenue’s appeal. In the impugned assessment year, the Revenue has assailed the order