CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- "1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GD GOENKA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., N- Acit, Circle-10(2), New Delhi 85, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg0865A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(3) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. Cross Objections 1. That learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts by upholding the validity of reopening of assessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 though

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 33,28,230 289,07,016 3,28,246 [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] 5. Disallowance of interest 32,58,548 81,98,798 1,02,95,292 [GOA No. 5] [GOA No. 5] - Deemed dividend

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 33,28,230 289,07,016 3,28,246 [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] 5. Disallowance of interest 32,58,548 81,98,798 1,02,95,292 [GOA No. 5] [GOA No. 5] - Deemed dividend

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 33,28,230 289,07,016 3,28,246 [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] 5. Disallowance of interest 32,58,548 81,98,798 1,02,95,292 [GOA No. 5] [GOA No. 5] - Deemed dividend

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Deemed dividend under Section 22(2)(e) of the Act of has wrongly been upheld. It has been submitted that the tribunal has erred in sustaining the Order of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of Rs. 10,20,212/- as added by the AO on account of expenses disallowed to the assessee. The impugned order has been challenged

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Deemed dividend under Section 22(2)(e) of the Act of has wrongly been upheld. It has been submitted that the tribunal has erred in sustaining the Order of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of Rs. 10,20,212/- as added by the AO on account of expenses disallowed to the assessee. The impugned order has been challenged

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Deemed dividend under Section 22(2)(e) of the Act of has wrongly been upheld. It has been submitted that the tribunal has erred in sustaining the Order of the CIT(A) regarding deletion of Rs. 10,20,212/- as added by the AO on account of expenses disallowed to the assessee. The impugned order has been challenged

MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) is upheld. Accordingly, the corresponding ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 5. As a result, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are partly allowed.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AVA MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,31,58,498. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the same and the issue raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. As a result, the Revenue

GEETA BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Geeta Bhasin, Vs Acit, C/O-Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv., Circle-28(1), C0763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025. Pan-Acdpb6005D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Shri M.Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022

deemed dividend. At any rate, without prejudice, such addition as made is very excessive. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition aggregating to Rs.32,61,337 u/s 41(1) of I.T. Act on account of cessation of liability of the following: Particulars Credit Balance as on 31.03.2014 (Rs.) a) Retention money

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. But certainly same cannot be agitated by the assessee before us in cross objection. 22. Even otherwise if the argument of the learned authorised representative is accepted it will make the provisions of section 263, 264 of the income tax act redundant if the assessment is subject matter of appeal. Clearly the provisions of section

CIT vs. BHARTI OVERSEAS TRADING CO

The appeal is disposed of

Delay in refiling of the appeal is condoned. 2012:DHC:1457-DB ITA 401/2011 Page 2 of 9 Application is disposed of. ITA 401/2011 The present appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in the case

CIT vs. BHARTI OVERSEAS TRADING CO

The appeal is disposed of

Delay in refiling of the appeal is condoned. 2012:DHC:1457-DB ITA 401/2011 Page 2 of 9 Application is disposed of. ITA 401/2011 The present appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in the case

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