“appeal before the tribunal”

Sastvijay Investment & Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

upheld and grounds taken by appellant are dismissed” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the order of CIT (A) is bad in law, perverse and is passed without considering the submissions made ... notice u/s 148. We find, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings before the CIT(A), but, without any success. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, vide ITA No.7244/Del/2019, order dated 12th August, 2021, for A.Y. 2011-12, had quashed the reassessment proceedings by observing as under

Naresh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Naresh, Vs. Ito, Ka-32, Kavi Nagar, Ward-2(5), Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Pan: Anmpn8094J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepanshu Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2021 Order

agricultural income and re-deposited out of earlier withdrawal. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment was completed ex parte due to non-compliance of certain statutory notices

Uma Shankar Sitani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

receipt will not change. Accordingly, ground no. 1 is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- “a) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in having

Pune Solapur Expressways P.Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

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

same. Hence, these grounds are decided against the appellant.” 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the following decisions, submitted that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee

M/S Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merit. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income tax, (Appeals

M/S. Bain & Company India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO (TDS) (International Taxation), New Delhi

withhold taxes on payment of Rs.82,34,242/-. 8 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ld. CIT(A)) has erred on facts

Abl Softminew Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Abl Softmines Technologies Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ltd., Ward-1(1), G-56, Green Park Main, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaica4883A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.11.2021 Order

dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-appearance, but, has not decided the appeal on merit

Alok Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) (Internaqtional Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and the Stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

appellant. Hence, the ground of appeal is dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action

Deepak Manchanda, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 41(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Manchanda, Vs. Ito, B-4/230, Sector-7, Ward 41(4), Rohini, New Delhi. Delhi,. Pan: Allpm0444N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Issar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2021 Order

Rs.1,15,098/- is hereby confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due non-receipt of notice from the AO, there was no compliance before him. He submitted that

Cashedge India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Fiserv Ce Private Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Cashedge Tax India Pvt. Ltd.) Circle-5(2) 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi-110002 (Respondent) New Delhi Aaccc2816K (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Adv & Ms. Disha Jham, Adv Respondent By Sh. Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.11.2021

also disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 12.04.2014 in ITA No. 5848/Delhi/2012, the Tribunal allowed the claim of exemption u/s. 10A of the Act and the issue of 3 adjustment in ALP was restored back

Sujeet Kumar Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-61(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Vs. Ito, 436 (Basement), Jangpura, Ward-61(3), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aitpm2677A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Assessee Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.10,80,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Sources.’ 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Profession & ‘Income From Other Sources.’ During The Course Of Original Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.10,80,000/- In His Savings Bank Account Maintained With Axis Bank. The Ao Called For The Source Of The Same Which The Assessee Could Not File & Sought Adjournment & Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition Of Rs.10.80 Lac. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Again Due To Non-Appearance & The Matter Reached Before Itat. The Case Was Set Aside By The Itat By Its Order No.5872/Del/2013 Dated 18Th May, 2016 & Remitted The Matter To The File Of Ao For Deciding The Issue Afresh, As Per Law, After Allowing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Itat Set Aside The Case On The Plea Of The Assessee That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 144 Of The Act, Without Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee To Present His Case & Same Position Prevailed In So Far As The Appellate Proceedings Are Concerned.

ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number

Smt. Shobha Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Shobha Sekhari, Vs Acit, 448-451, Chinmin Farms, Central Circle-15, Village Satbari, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi. Pan: Aatps1222M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th January, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- Made By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issued Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 11.11.2010 In Tinna Group Of Cases Including The Assessee. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,28,60,948/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.5,38,413/-. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Capital Gain Of Rs.2,23,03,125/- On Transfer Of A Land Measuring 39 Bighas Situated At Village Rojka Gujjar Distt. Sohna (Haryana). While Doing So, The Ao Rejected The Claim Of This Land As Agricultural Land On Which An Amount Of Rs.29,410/- Was Shown As Agricultural Income. The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A). The Ao, Thereafter, Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao.

appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case

Shekhar Mehta, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward - 2, Fatehabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekhar Mehta, Vs. Ito, H. No.80A, Model Town, Ward-2, Fatehabad, Fatehabad. Haryana. Pan: Akgpm5739A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2021 Order

parte order, sustained the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance of the assessee

Sunita, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 41(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical puposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita, Vs. Ito, C-1/6B, Keshav Puram, Ward-41(4), Lawrence Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Azxps0119E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order

passed by him, sustained the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. Both the sides submitted that this matter

Star Facilities Management Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -24(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Star Facilities Management Limited, Vs. Ito, 115-Ansal Bhawan, Ward-24(2), 16, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs2854C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arta Trana Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th August, 2020 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Is Regarding The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2018 Declaring Nil Income. The Return Was Processed On 15Th May, 2019 At Cpc, Bangalore At An Income Of Rs.2,62,980/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,62,984/- On Account Of Late Deposit Of Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The It Act. Before The Cit(A), The Assessee, Relying On Various Decisions, Submitted That The Addition Is Not Justified Since The Assessee Has Deposited The Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income. However, The Ld.Cit(A), Following The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., Reported In 410 Itr 417 & Various Other Decisions, Held That The Assessee Is Not Entitled To Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Due To Failure On His Part In Depositing The Employees’ Contribution On Or Before The Due Date.

depositing the employees’ contribution on or before the due date. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that a number of High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court and the coordinate Benches

Jagdish, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

undersigned. Hence, this additional ground of appeal is rejected.” 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction

Saraswati Realtech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-22(3), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Saraswati Realtech P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, B-23, Ground Floor, Ward-22(3), Pushpanjali Enclave, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. Pan: Aamcs0744G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca & Shri Hemant Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2021 Order

reassessment proceedings and also sustained the addition on merit. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 18 [8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the original assessment was reopened by issuing notice

DCIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Shadab Khan, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2015-16

brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08th August 2019 has decided that the revenue would not prefer any appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided

Anoop Bishnoi, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range- 22, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Anoop Bishnoi, Vs Jcit, D-1028, New Friends Colony, Range-22, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaipb5040R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 20Th August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-31, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Additions Made By The Ao.

made by the AO by deciding the issue on merit. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the previous counsel appointed by the assessee did not appear before

Amrik Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Amrik Singh, Vs Dcit, M/S Sbg & Co., Cas, Circle-19(1), 9 Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, New Delhi. Civil Lines, New Delhi. Pan : Aaxps2407C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th February, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.1,16,90,726/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued On The Assessee Calling For Various Details/Information. However, Despite A Number Of Opportunities Granted By The Ao, There Was No Appearance From The Side Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. He Noted That The Assessee Has Shown Gross Receipt Of Rs.5,28,74,884/- & Net Profit Was Shown At Rs.1,18,40,726/-. Since The Assessee Did Not File The Requisite Details, The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.1,32,62,315/- Appearing In The Balance Sheet As Unsecured Loan. Similarly, In Absence Of Details Filed For Substantiating The Various Expenses Claimed In The Profit & Loss Account, The Ao Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.11,89,992/- Being 50% Of The Interest Paid For Unsecured Loan Of Rs.23,79,844/-. Similarly, He Also Disallowed 50% Of Expenses On Account Of Other Expenses (Rs.10,71,926/-), Tour & Travel Expenses (Rs.7,70,165/-) & Depreciation (Rs.9,61,370/-) All Totaling To Rs.39,93,453/-. Thus, The Ao Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,89,46,500/-.

This ground of appeal is partly ruled against the appellant.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- “1. That the Commissioner (Appeal) erred in disallowing expenses to the tune of Rs.39