SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

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

section 148A(a) of the Act has been conducted; order is based on non-application of mind and without disposing off objections of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the order dated 23.07.2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act is patently illegal

KETAN ANAND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45, DELHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ketan Anand Ito- Ward 45, Delhi. 100C Dda Janta Flat Shivaji Vs Enclave, Delhi-110027 [Pan:Arupk6159P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. K.K. Panday, Adv Revenue By Sh. Virendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 26.08.2025 Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

section 148A (d) and also consider support issue with regard to short term capital gain and long term capital gain

MUKESH,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Mukesh Vs. Ito 129, Ganga Ram Panna, Ward- 43(1) Kair, Najafgarh Delhi Delhi Pan: Apvpm4449M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lalverma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

148A of the Act and issued a fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act on 08/07/2022. In response, the Assessee filed a return of income on 02/08/2022, declaring a total income of Rs.1,33,780/-, after claiming a deduction under Section 54 of the Act of Rs.74,55,000/- against the capital gain

VIPUL AGRAWAL,GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarvipul Agrawal, Vs. Acit, 35, Chandrapuri, Hapur Chungi, Up Hapur, Road, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpa6874P

capital gain on sale of property of Rs 33,51,500/- had escaped assessment. Notice under section 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 30.3.2019. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment together with the approval granted by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad in terms of section 151 of the Act are enclosed

SONEA DHIR,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-32 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains declared on the\nother properties viz application of provisions of section 50C and\ndisallowance of interest paid on home loans.\n\n12. It is thus, clear that the AO has recorded its satisfaction of the\nescapablement of income of INR 5,50,00,000/- being the payment\ntowards purchases of immovable property however, no adverse\ninference was taken

SHRI MALKIAT SINGH,DELHI vs. CIT(APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Malkiat Singh, Vs.Ito, Ward 45(1), Wz 46/3B, Krishna Puri, New Delhi Gali No. 1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi – 110 018 (Pan:Bsrps2158H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.10.2025 Order

capital gain. Originally notice under section 148A(b) dated 09.02.2024 was issued stating therein that the income had escaped the assessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. VISHWANATH SINGHAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Vishwanath Singhal, Circle-58(1), 40, Priya Enclave, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aasps988Ik Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

capital gains exemption under section 10(38) of the Act on sale of penny stock shares. Once the same is not considered as a penny stock (i.e. shares of Eicher Motors Limited) which fact is also admitted by the Learned AO himself in the order passed under section 148A

URMILA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) (1) GZB., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Urmila Devi, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(1), R-2/44, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Pan: Agcpd5389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through Vc) & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Order Dated 12.03.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Following Grounds:- 1. That The Order U/S. 250 Passed By The Cit(A) Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Passing Order U/S. 250 With Pre- Conceived Motion & Without Appreciating Material On Records. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Amounting To Rs. 2442775/- Claimed U/S. 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Ltcg For Investment On The Construction Of The House. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Report Of The Valuer In Support Of The Construction Of The House For Claim Of Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Act.

148A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 31.3.2022 being fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee on 31.03.2022, after obtaining necessary approval from the PCCIT, UP West & Uttarakhand issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee. Thereafter, necessary statutory notices were also issued to the assessee and in response

AMIT GOYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Amit Goyal Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-59, Greater Kailash-Ii, Ward 30(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Pan: Aalha3711R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. Dr

capital gain u/s. 10(38) of the Act in the case of Reena Kumari vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 752/D/2024 dated 20.12.2024, wherein, it has been observed as under:- “Then as with regard to the allegation of the assessee that 6. the A.O has relied upon certain statements and documents while making the impugned additions in the assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUSHIL TYAGI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, Ms. Agarwal states they shall immediately take steps to withdraw the appeal filed. Statement accepted. 15. Petition disposed. No order

SARIKA TYAGI,GHAZIBAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZAIBAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, Ms. Agarwal states they shall immediately take steps to withdraw the appeal filed. Statement accepted. 15. Petition disposed. No order

YOGENDER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, Ms. Agarwal states they shall immediately take steps to withdraw the appeal filed. Statement accepted. 15. Petition disposed. No order

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, Ms. Agarwal states they shall immediately take steps to withdraw the appeal filed. Statement accepted. 15. Petition disposed. No order

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. YOGENDER SINGH , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, Ms. Agarwal states they shall immediately take steps to withdraw the appeal filed. Statement accepted. 15. Petition disposed. No order

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee by the AO with the prior approval from the specified authority wherein the assessee was given a show-cause notice dated 14.03.2022, which was served upon the assessee through speed post and assessee was show caused as to why the income received as above shall

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

capital gain of Rs.9,60,000/- at all and thus concealed the particulars of his income. The same being found undisclosed unexplained, a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority.” 8. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee took us through the computation of income and stated that