ADDL . CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GAURSONS REALTY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus, is also proved by the fact that no withholding of tax has been done, which was mandated u/s 194IA of the Act? ITA No.2662/Del/19 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing interest u/s 36(i)(iii) despite the fact that no interest free funds were available

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RAQUNAK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

43B and section 14A 4 ITA Nos. 5610 & 6081/Del/2014. Raunaq International Ltd.,New Delhi. of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the Revenue and the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. The Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to the addition

M/S. RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

43B and section 14A 4 ITA Nos. 5610 & 6081/Del/2014. Raunaq International Ltd.,New Delhi. of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the Revenue and the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. The Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the Revenue relate to the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROHTAK vs. PANKAJ JAIN, ROHTAK

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak. 123/34, Vishwakarma Kathmandi, Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Azupj6345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Shri Nakul Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without The Proper & Mandatory Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 148A(B). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Law & On Facts By Failing To Consider That The Then Ao Has Given Notice U/S 148A(B) To Assessee On 31.03.2022

bogus purchase and disallowed the same u/s 37(1) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 25.03.2024 by assessing the total income at Rs.5,41,69,809/-. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and filed grounds of appeal and detailed submissions. Before

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. GANGOL SAHKARI DUGDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD., MEERUT

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

43B of the Income Tax Act because the assessee has debited to the interest which falls in the financial year 2010-11. AO is justified to make addition on the above two counts and therefore the order of the AO should be restored. On the other hand Ld. AR relied upon the order

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 43B of the Act. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 5 I. T. Appeal Nos. 4642,4643,4644 & 4645/Del/2014 AND I. T. Appeal Nos. 4647,4648,4649,4650 & 4651/Del/2014. Assessment Years : 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11. 3. In the appeal filed by the Revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., GURGAON

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 43B of the Act. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 5 I. T. Appeal Nos. 4642,4643,4644 & 4645/Del/2014 AND I. T. Appeal Nos. 4647,4648,4649,4650 & 4651/Del/2014. Assessment Years : 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11. 3. In the appeal filed by the Revenue

SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 5 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in completing the assessment at income Rs. 65,43,244/- instead of income of Rs.5,90,940/- as returned by appellant. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer

. ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. THE BAGHPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., BAGHPAT

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2008-09

Section 43B(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by not paying the accrued interest before the due date of filing of return. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and / or delete any ground(s) of appeal. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A), Noida may be set aside

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus payments. Moreover, though section 194J was inserted with effect from July 1, 1995, till the assessment year in question that is the assessment year 2005-06 both the Revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that section 194'J was not applicable to the Page 5 of 59 payment of transaction charges and accordingly, during the period from

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

43B, interest disallowance on OD, director’s remuneration and purchases etc., hardly need to be discussed and decided at length in light of the assessee’s foregoing book rejection on our part in preceding paras and going by Prasant Oil Mill vs Income-tax Officer [2016] 72 taxmann.com 136 (Gujarat) and Indwell Construction

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

43B, interest disallowance on OD, director’s remuneration and purchases etc., hardly need to be discussed and decided at length in light of the assessee’s foregoing book rejection on our part in preceding paras and going by Prasant Oil Mill vs Income-tax Officer [2016] 72 taxmann.com 136 (Gujarat) and Indwell Construction

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section