SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in all kinds of blankets in the trade name of “M/s. Khurana Wooltex”, filed his return of income on 26.09.2018, declaring total income

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

SIL GOLD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 53(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisil Gold, Vs. Ito, Prakash Sachin & Co, Ward-53(4), 13D, 13Th Floor, Atma Ram New Delhi House, 1, Tolstoy Marg, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aacfs1025P (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases and commission of rupees 11360/–. 8. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned commissioner of income tax appeals has preferred an appeal before us. There was a delay of 234 days in filing of the appeal and therefore the assessee mood an application for condonation

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

RAM AVTAR GUPTA & CO.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

bogus purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 20% of the purchases of Rs. 6,09,463/-, without there being any basis for the same. 7.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both

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

M/S. BHARTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

delay in the appeals is condoned. 4. Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order under consideration submitted that the assessee who is found mentioned at Sl. No.-17 in the list of companies where Konichiva Builders Ltd. is found mentioned in Sl. No.-1. It was submitted that the Tribunal in Konichiva Builders Ltd. restored the issue of allowance

M/S. BHARTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

delay in the appeals is condoned. 4. Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order under consideration submitted that the assessee who is found mentioned at Sl. No.-17 in the list of companies where Konichiva Builders Ltd. is found mentioned in Sl. No.-1. It was submitted that the Tribunal in Konichiva Builders Ltd. restored the issue of allowance

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

M/S. RIGHTWAY MOTORS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

condonation of the delay on the ground stated therein that the director’s family was facing dowry harassment case and was not in town due to arrest warrant, etc., was rejected by him. Similarly, for A.Y 2010-11, the assessee filed the return of income on 30th 6. September, 2010 declaring the total income at Rs.31