DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ADVENTURE RESORTS AND CRUISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well Assessee’s cross objection both are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdcit, Circle 1(2), Vs.Adventure Resorts Room No. 368, C.R. Building & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. I.P. Estate, New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan:Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.198/Del/2022 (Asstt. Year : 2014-15) Adventure Resorts Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2) & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

bogus. Once the AO has accepted the books of accounts and he has not resorted to section 145 of the Act , there is no reason that AO will disallow the purchases. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the same

GOEL JEWELLERY & MART P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

purchases made in the ordinary course of business. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the ground either at or before the hearing of the appeal.” ITA No.-6686/Del/2017 Goel Jewellery & Mart P. Ltd. 2. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The contents

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition despite the fact that notice u/s 148 was issued without a document identification number and therefore, the same is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 8. That on the facts and circumstances

IMRAN AHMAD,MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Delay of 482 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. We next note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has upheld the Assessing Officer

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase, made by the Ld. A.O, on account of the fact that it is not based on any material/document found during the course of search. This is an admission by the Assessee of the fact that search in fact took place. Moreover, the letter of request for condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase, made by the Ld. A.O, on account of the fact that it is not based on any material/document found during the course of search. This is an admission by the Assessee of the fact that search in fact took place. Moreover, the letter of request for condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase, made by the Ld. A.O, on account of the fact that it is not based on any material/document found during the course of search. This is an admission by the Assessee of the fact that search in fact took place. Moreover, the letter of request for condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE vs. MAHESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal 19/176 Near Usha Mata Mandir Old Rohtak Road , North West Delhi 110035 Pan No. Adupa7276 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the income assessed by the AO at Rs.4,25,47,065/- on estimation basis at 8% of the turn over

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. MAHALAXMI LIGHT HOUSE , HAPUR

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapurchungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases booked by the assessee from shell company Zenith Enterprises managed by entry provider Ankit Karanwall. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions done with Zenith Enterprises and failed to give documentary evidences for purchase of 141512MRT of fabric from Zenith Enterprises. Merely, routing the funds through banking channel does not make a transaction to be genuine

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

HARJINDER SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO,WARD-1, PANIPAT

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Itat. The Assessee

delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2018-19 the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,35,400/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on receipt of information that assessee had bogus purchases