BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

18 results for “TDS”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad44Mumbai39Jaipur28Chennai23Bangalore23Delhi18Ahmedabad16Cuttack14Surat13Agra13Kolkata12Jodhpur11Lucknow9Raipur8Pune7Chandigarh7Amritsar7Visakhapatnam5Patna5Indore3Rajkot3Guwahati2Allahabad2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 6821Section 143(3)17Addition to Income16Cash Deposit15Demonetization14Section 69A13Section 115B6Section 695Section 142(1)5TDS

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. SANTOSH TRUST, NEW DELHI

ITA 1427/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSh. Suresh K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: \nSh. Mahesh Shah, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 80G(5)(iv)

TDS from 15.11.2016 to 27.12.2016 and\nhouse tax payment of Rs.12,44,509/- on 25.11.2016. By virtue of\nNotification F No. 10/03/2016-CYI dt: 10.11.2016 (PB 141), the\nassessee were allowed to make such payment in demonetized

ARIGATO AND OBLIGADO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED,. vs. ITO WARD 3(2), NEW DELHI

5
Section 1444
Section 153A4

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

ITA 31/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

TDS as such disallowance of a sum of Rs.16,06,265/- out of the said sum is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) on 21.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.1,65,25,070/- as against the returned income of Rs.23

M/S FLUOR DANIER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2696/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit, Vs Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-4, (Earlier Known As Ritika New Delhi Pvt.Ltd.), B-38, Sagar Apartment, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabcr5510N Appellant Respondent

Section 1

demonetization bank accounts of the laborers under ASV Enterprises were opened and now salary payments were directly to these bank account of laborers from his current account. (question no. 19 of page 825 of paperbook) vi. Thus, upon reading the statements in entirety, it is to be noticed that none of the parties have denied rendering of job work services

DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. MGV JAIN JWELLERS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 112/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mgv Jain Jewellers Circle-16(1), Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Shop New Delhi No.1,2780/20, Karol Bagh, Bedonpura, New Delhi-110005. Pan-Aagcm3999K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

demonetization period and also again reliance was placed on the judgment of 'Delhi High Court' in the case of Akshit Kumar at pages 46 to 48 of the order. 25. Another submissions were made vide our submissions, dated 04.10.2022 and it was contended on the basis of various case laws at page 50 of the order of the Chandigarh Bench

FINE GUJRANWALA JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1540/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate
Section 285BSection 68

demonetization period. Thus, appellant’s contention that 4 Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, section 68 does not apply in its case, does not stand, as cash sales is not proved.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A) dated 21/06/2022, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the ground mentioned above. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted

SHARWAN KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessees are

ITA 1003/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 69A

demonetized currency after 8/11/2016 in the bank account. In response to the summon myself attended and appeared before the ADIT (Inv.), Ambala on 28/12/2016. As per the advise of ADIT (Inv.), Ambala, the amount of cash deposited in the bank account after 8/11/2016 in old currency notes were agreed to be declared under PMGKY Scheme 2016. The scheme 'was announced

ALFA MODERN MOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), CR BUILDING

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

ITA 5701/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Alfa Modern Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-24/2, Naraina Industrial Ward-2(1) Area, Phase-I, C.R. Building New Delhi-110028. Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaica6087C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Goel, Ca & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44ASection 46ASection 69A

demonetization period was fully explained and accounted for as cash sales. 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the cash deposits were already disclosed in the books of accounts and represented sales, thus making the addition unjustified and resulting in double taxation. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law by not appreciating the explanation provided

DEEPSONS (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandradeepsons (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 31St Floor, Community Income Tax, Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Circle 7(1), Area, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacd3267B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 115BSection 68

demonetization are out of the earlier withdrawals/accruals of the business supported by the relevant evidences including cash book. 4. Without prejudice to ground No.3, the authorities below have erred both in facts and in law in invoking provisions of sec 115BBE of IT Act on the addition of Rs.56,65,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act without appreciating the fact

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-28, NEW DELHI vs. HAZOORILAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, M-44, M-Block, Greater Kailash- Central Circle-28, 1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Dcit, Vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-28, M-44, M-Block, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri Varun Kholi, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

demonetization by the Govt of India. The books of ITA No. 432/Del/2021 Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd account of the assessee had not been rejected and to the extent of cash sales made , corresponding reduction in stock register had been duly made by the assessee. No discrepancy to this effect was either found by the search team at the time

HAZOORILAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, M-44, M-Block, Greater Kailash- Central Circle-28, 1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Dcit, Vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-28, M-44, M-Block, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri Varun Kholi, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

demonetization by the Govt of India. The books of ITA No. 432/Del/2021 Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd account of the assessee had not been rejected and to the extent of cash sales made , corresponding reduction in stock register had been duly made by the assessee. No discrepancy to this effect was either found by the search team at the time

SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1630/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Circle-2(1)(1), K-10/72, Garima Ghaziabad Garden Pasonda, Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Sushil Kumar Sharma, Vs. Acit, K-10/72, Garima Circle-2(1)(1), Garden Pasonda, Ghaziabad Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Assessee By : Shri Vicky Kapoor, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vicky Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 69

demonetization was never to consider arbitrarily, even an explained nature and source of cash deposit as unauthorized and treat them as deemed income under Income Tax act and taxed at special rate provided u/s 115 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT- (A) erred in maintaining the order passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD vs. SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1944/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Circle-2(1)(1), K-10/72, Garima Ghaziabad Garden Pasonda, Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Sushil Kumar Sharma, Vs. Acit, K-10/72, Garima Circle-2(1)(1), Garden Pasonda, Ghaziabad Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Assessee By : Shri Vicky Kapoor, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vicky Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 69

demonetization was never to consider arbitrarily, even an explained nature and source of cash deposit as unauthorized and treat them as deemed income under Income Tax act and taxed at special rate provided u/s 115 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT- (A) erred in maintaining the order passed

NAVNEET GARG,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD- 43(7), DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 1801/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, CA Uma UpadhyayFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143Section 68

demonetization period. This issue of the Assessee Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The next issue in this appeal of Assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of claim of exemption of indexation cost of construction for an amount of Rs. 1,09,54,020/- while computing the same under the head

SHALIMAR CORP LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

demonetization period and there was Page 8 of 19 ITA No. 3068/DEL/2022 Shalimar Corp [A.Y. 2017-18) no evidence found during search with regard to any physical cash in the case of the assessee and its group. The ld. DR pointed out that the ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra), while holding 20% of the on-money calculated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. SHALIMAR CORP. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3068/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

demonetization period and there was Page 8 of 19 ITA No. 3068/DEL/2022 Shalimar Corp [A.Y. 2017-18) no evidence found during search with regard to any physical cash in the case of the assessee and its group. The ld. DR pointed out that the ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra), while holding 20% of the on-money calculated

MUON COMPUTING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7606/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2016-17 Muon Computing P.Ltd., Vs Ito, G-28/119-120, 2Nd Floor, Ward-17(2), Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi-110085. Pan-Aahcm6193J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh.K.Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V.Raj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2021

demonetization period. The percentage of cash deposit vis-a-vis turnover has also been analysis from which it is seen that the percentage of cash deposit vis-a-vis the turn over as risen sharply from 0.55% in F.Y. 2014-15 to 28.05% in F.Y. 2015-16. Increased turn over has also been shown for F.Y. 2015-16 which

FICUS MERCANTILE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as per directions above

ITA 1131/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ficus Mercantile Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 9(2), B-89 Ground Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-1100 17 Pan : Aafcs4215B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

demonetization period and thus Assessing Officer proceeded under Section 144 (1)(b) of the Act and made the addition. 4. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee had claimed that there was no service of the notice directly in any form and the notice was served through the affixture by Inspector and thus it was claimed that the assessment order under

PROMILLA MATHUR,DELHI vs. AO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3852/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Promilla Mathur, Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac D-55, Gulmohar Park, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Afkpm7548E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Alok Mital, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Ground:- 1. The Order Passed By The Ai/Cit(A) Is Bad In Law, Wrong On Facts & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ao/Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Assessing / Upholding The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,25,293/- As Unexplained Despite Producing Documents On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Alok Mital, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

TDS had been made. On the basis of this information available with the AO, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee u./s. 148 of the Act. However, the assessee neither filed any return income nor explained the nature and source of impugned transactions entered into during