M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

TDS was not made in the name of the firm, therefore, it did not reflect in the form AS 26 of the firm. The AO in his order after seeking the directions of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 144A

MRS. RUPAL JAIN,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

144A are mandatory in nature and the directions given by Ld. Additional CIT have to be followed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. B) The addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made to the total income I.T.A. No.975/Del/2017 3 declared by the Appellant on account of capital introduced by the appellant deserves to be deleted in toto on the following, inter

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

TDS was not made in the name of the firm, therefore, it did not reflect in the form AS 26 of the firm. The AO in his order after seeking the directions of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 144A

SATISH KUMAR TYAGI,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Saini

section 144A of the Act vide order dated 10.3.2015. 4. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 24.2.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that that joint Hindu Property does not devolve on HUF by succession as is being sought to be made

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act. 43. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted at page 37 of the paper book being an agreement between Crabtree India Ltd and assessee dated 13.03.2002. The agreement says that the assessee is having marketing infrastructure in the form of Central and Accounts Office

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act. 43. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted at page 37 of the paper book being an agreement between Crabtree India Ltd and assessee dated 13.03.2002. The agreement says that the assessee is having marketing infrastructure in the form of Central and Accounts Office

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act. 43. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted at page 37 of the paper book being an agreement between Crabtree India Ltd and assessee dated 13.03.2002. The agreement says that the assessee is having marketing infrastructure in the form of Central and Accounts Office

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

144A of the Act; and d) The facts are fresh and new arisen during the assessment proceedings, but, the AO did not conduct any enquiry to find out the veracity of such facts. 16. We find, identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of spouse of the assessee, namely, Mrs. Shumana Sen wherein the coordinate Bench

DALMIA (BROS) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandalmia (Bros) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 7 (1), C/O Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co., New Delhi. Chartered Accountants, Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, Vivek Vihar, Phase 1, Delhi – 110 095. (Pan :Aaacd3525G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Advocate Ms. Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Vehicle Running Expenses Amounting To Rs.4,00,204/- Though Evidences Placed On Record. Thus, The Addition Made On Surmises & Conjectures Must Be Deleted.

144A of the Act-was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. The purpose for introduction of section 14A with retrospective effect since inception of the Act was clarified vide Circular No.14 of 2001 as under: "Certain incomes are not includible while computing the total income, as these exempt under various provisions of the Act. There

MOHAN SHARMA(INDIVIDUAL),BALLABGARH vs. ITO, WARDE-1(5), FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandalmia (Bros) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 7 (1), C/O Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co., New Delhi. Chartered Accountants, Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, Vivek Vihar, Phase 1, Delhi – 110 095. (Pan :Aaacd3525G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Advocate Ms. Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Vehicle Running Expenses Amounting To Rs.4,00,204/- Though Evidences Placed On Record. Thus, The Addition Made On Surmises & Conjectures Must Be Deleted.

144A of the Act-was introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. The purpose for introduction of section 14A with retrospective effect since inception of the Act was clarified vide Circular No.14 of 2001 as under: "Certain incomes are not includible while computing the total income, as these exempt under various provisions of the Act. There

MR. MOHIT GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT, FARIDABAD

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

TDS was deducted and reflected on the computer system of the department as per Form 26AS. However, the said interest income was not shown -in the Return of Income filed on 28.07.2010. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.08.2011 fixing the case far hearing on 13.09.2011. 3.3 After receipt of the notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.08.2011, you revised

M.R APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

TDS at the rate of 1%, amounting to ₹6,50,000/- was also deducted on the total sale consideration paid by the purchaser on 18.03.2015. Admittedly, a sum of ₹5,05,00,000/- was received by the appellant. However, the appellant claims that he did not receive the balance amount of ₹1,45,00,000/-, as the cheques

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

TDS nor offered transaction as sale in books of account (Page 23 of PB) • Copy of audited financial statements (Page 28 of PB) • Affidavit and Indemnity bond (Page 5 to 7 of PB) 3.2 The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of sale of capital assets only.(Page 62 of PB) 3.3 Acceptance of claim

SHIVALIK EDUCATIONAL & PLACEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

TDS and deposit into central Government account and paid the interest." Further, in the preceding Para it has also been established that the entities from where the assessee company has raised unsecured loans are bogus companies/paper entities engaged in providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash in the disguise of unsecured loans, bogus purchases, expenses etc and as such question

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

TDS)on contractual payments of Rs.3,23,15,000/- made to labour sub- contractors in contravention to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). The AO therefore, disallowed 30% of Rs.3,23,15,000/- amounting to Rs.96,04,500/- and added back to the returned income. Further, the AO also noticed that the assessee

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

144A of the I.T. Act, 1961 about the examination of the complainant and his cross examination by the assessee in support of assessee’s claims and against the stand taken by the complainant though the same was specifically and statutorily directed. 14(I) Since above stated facts are fresh & new arising during assessment proceedings, but A.O.. did not conduct

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

144A of the I.T. Act, 1961 about the examination of the complainant and his cross examination by the assessee in support of assessee’s claims and against the stand taken by the complainant though the same was specifically and statutorily directed. 14(I) Since above stated facts are fresh & new arising during assessment proceedings, but A.O.. did not conduct

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

144A of the I.T. Act, 1961 about the examination of the complainant and his cross examination by the assessee in support of assessee’s claims and against the stand taken by the complainant though the same was specifically and statutorily directed. 14(I) Since above stated facts are fresh & new arising during assessment proceedings, but A.O.. did not conduct