“appeal before the tribunal”

Blooming Diagnostics & Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(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: 2012-13 Blooming Diagnostics & Impex Vs Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-5(1), C/O R.K. Tuli & Associates, Ca, New Delhi. 11/37, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aaccb9882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, 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 Ex Parte Order Dated 10Th March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 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 & Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,24,13,520/- Against The Returned Income Of The Assessee Of Rs.5,95,800/-. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Drugs, Medicines & Pathological Items. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2013 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.5,95,810/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 02.09.2014 Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee Through Speed Post. A Questionnaire Dated 22Nd October, 2014 U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee For Compliance.

assessee by Rs.60 lakhs which the AO had allowed. 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 in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate

Action Construction Equipment Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Action Construction Vs Dcit, Equipment Ltd.Kashyap & Co. Central Circle-1, Chartered Accountants, 214, Complex, Nh-Iv, Citi Centre, Begum Bridge Nit, Faridabad. Road, Meerut, (U.P.)-250001 Pan-Aaaca6189P Appellant Respondent

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who sustained the penalty and now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the grievance of the assessee against imposition of the penalty are that

ACIT, Circle- 4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Bharat Hotels Limited, Circle-4(2), Barakhamba Lane, Room No.398D, New Delhi-110001 C.R. Building, New Delhi Pan-Aaacb1298E Appellant Respondent

provisions of section 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issues as raised by the Revenue in the present appeal

DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Maxworth Infrasqwtructrure P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

only in earlier years, but in subsequent years also. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us the parties appeared through videoconferencing facility. The assessee filed a paperbook containing pages

Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed and additional ground being infructuous is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

assessee, but, the Department did not file any appeal against the same Order. In A.Y. 2011-2012 though the Department filed appeal before the Tribunal on this issue on allowing depreciation, but, the same has been dismissed vide Order Dated 21.10.2019 (supra). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) was bound

Pawansut Media Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

ITA.No.534/Del./2021 Pawansut Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. PCIT the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 8 ITA.No.534/Del./2021 Pawansut Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 9 ITA.No.534/Del./2021 Pawansut Media Services ... passed by the A.O. were erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order passed under section 263 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. When the Revenue preferred

Akt Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2016-17 Akt Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 57, Lajpat Nagar-3, Ward 1(1), South Delhi, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl3085E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pulkit Saini, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 Order

upheld. Ground No. 2 & 3 are decided against the appellant.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the own capital and free reserves of the assessee company

Lalita, Alwar vs. ITO Ward - 42(4), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Lalita, Vs. Ito, C/O K.L. Datta & Company, Ward 42(4), Vashishtha Plaza 2, Delhi. Manu Marg, Alwar, Rajasthan. Pan: Adgpl2634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 Order

Rs.3,81,600/- out of income from house property. 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 Id. assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances

Labh Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -02, Panipat

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

above observations. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 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, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

ACIT, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Videoconferencing facility. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute

Ram Chand Baboo Mal & Co, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(2), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

relevant details/documents before the AO, therefore, the AO was justified to make addition on account of the same.” 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. At the outset, we may like to mention that before the Tribunal a power of attorney ... sent an inspector for service of the notice at the address of the assessee provided in form No. 36, i.e, prescribed for filing appeal before the Tribunal, however, could not find anyone at the address and, therefore, he served notice through affixture in presence of two witnesses. Despite service

ITO, Ward- 2, Narnaul vs. Ramesh Chand, Narnaul

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Ito, Sh. Ramesh Chand, Ward-2, M/S Bhaktawar Mal Narnaul, Near Mahavir Bhawani Sahay, Nai Mandi, Chowk, Narnaul, Mahendergarh Road, Haryana. Haryana Pan-Aancp5095N Revenue Assessee Sh. Shiv Swaroop Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By Assessee By Sh. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am

delete the same. This ground of appeal is allowed. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Bhagwati Educational Society, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

additions, which were made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through videoconferencing facility and filed paper-book through email. 4. The ground

International Hospital Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2011-12

under section 115JB was retained. Aggrieved with said finding of the Ld. CIT(A), 3 the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility. The assessee filed a paper-book containing pages

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S I.G. Builders & Permoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. I.G. Builders & Circle-12(2), Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi C-581, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaaci1640K (Appellant) (Respondent)

sufficient for the Revenue to prove that the entries represented undisclosed income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, the parties appeared through video conference facilities. We have heard rival arguments and perused the material

Rukmini Polytubes Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

sustaining the addition of Rs.1,82,543 under section 43B of the I.T. Act, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs.1,82,543/- u/s 43B of IT Act ignoring the fact that

Vansh Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the Finance Bill 2021, amendments were made in Sections 36 and 43B vide Clauses

Aroon Facilitation Management Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

funds and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 ITA.No.1824/Del./2020 M/s. Aroon Facilitation Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that

Worldwide Facility Management Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

income tax return amounting to Rs.21,40,164/-. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the Finance Bill 2021, amendments were made in Sections 36 and 43B vide Clauses

Adma Solution P Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that in the Finance Bill 2021, amendments were made in Sections 36 and 43B vide Clauses