“appeal before the tribunal”

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

Vinod Jindal, Faridabad, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Haryana

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal are taken: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case ... 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

Rahul Rastogi, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

also held the reassessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional ground. Against the order of the AAC the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal and specifically raised the plea that the question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment having been expressly given up by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Shamli vs. Shamli Model Shop No 1, Panipat Kairana Road

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Ito, Vs Shamli Model Shop No.1, Shamli, Panipat, Kairana Road, Phawara Chowk, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-247776. Pan-Adyfs4489E Appellant Respondent C.O.No-48/Del/2025 [In Ita No.1932/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Shamli Model Shop No.1, Vs Ito, Panipat, Kairana Road, Shamli, Phawara Chowk, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh-247776. Pan-Adyfs4489E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Harshit Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Revenue & The Cross- Objection Is By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless

made towards the payment of tax made to Excise department. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ITO Ward 24(1), New Delhi vs. Sourabh Logistics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

crores on account of unsecured loans were deleted by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Bmw India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Bmw India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Oberoi Centre Of Income Tax, Circle (1), Building No. 11, Dlf Cyber Hsiidc Building, Vanijya City Dlf Phase, Gurgaon, Nikunj Udhyog Vihar, Haryuana, 122001 Phase-5, Gurgaon, Pan: Aabcb7140C Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha-Adv, Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv& Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)-Gurgaon, Dated 28/06/2022 U/S254R.W. Section 143(3)/144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short).

being payment made to M/s Bhumi Consultants. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order dated 19/02/2016, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 1514/Del/2016, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 25/01/2019, set aside the Final Assessment Order by deleting the adjustment made with

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sudha Loyalka, Vs Ito, Prop.Tirupati Industries, 2/1, Ward-35(2), Block-41, Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. Pan-Aabpl6055D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-12, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/15-16 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 27.09.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 3,52,180/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Fabrics & Readymade Garments Under The Name & Style As M/S. Tirupati Industries. The Assessee Has Shown Total Sundry Creditors Of Inr 6,77,21,342/- Which Includes Inr 3,48,88,095/- Under The Title “Retail Creditors Control Account”. In Order To Examine The Genuineness Of These Creditors, Ao Issued Notice U/S 133(6) Of The Act To 27 Parties Out Of Which Notices Issued To 20 Parities Amounting To Inr 2,78,20,495/- Were Returned Back For The Reason “Wrong Address/Incomplete Address/Non-Existed” Etc. The Ao Thereafter, Discussed Each Of The Parties To Whom Notices Were Sent & Reached To The Conclusion That These Parties Are Non-Existent & Made The Addition Of Inr 3,50,94,758/- As Bogus Creditors.

considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal where the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.07.2018 in ITA No.399/Del/2017 [Assessment Year 2012-13] deleted the additions and allowed the appeal

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nuwave E Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

wherein the additions made as well as disallowance made were deleted. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal :- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred