ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

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

section 10(38) of the Act and deletion notional interest of Rs.10,49,768/- taxed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’). 3.1 The Revenue’s appeal is delay by 20 days. Condonation

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

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

section 10(38) of the Act and deletion notional interest of Rs.10,49,768/- taxed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’). 3.1 The Revenue’s appeal is delay by 20 days. Condonation

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condoned in respect of the bank, then the matter even in so far as the appellant is concerned would be over. 19. He further submitted that the order dated 03.03.2011 whereby the respondent No. 3 revoked the passport of the appellant was bad for another reason. The reason being that the said order dated 03.03.2011 refers to diversion of Foreign

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. If an assessee is genuinely aggrieved by an order referred to in Section 253(1) of I.T. Act, and wishes to appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; the only plausible advice by a professional lawyer, well-versed and experienced

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

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

38) of the Act on sale of scripts during the impugned AY and also that the amount of Rs. 1,35,21,188 represents 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

JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect facts and suspicion, and that no proper inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "143(1)", "10(38

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

38 crores)]to be allowed as\ndeduction in each of the five successive previous years (commencing\nfrom A.Y. 2013-14) u/s 35D of the Act as an additional ground before\nHon'ble ITAT. Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case has allowed\nthe aforesaid claim of the appellant vide order dated 07-12-2021.\nCopy of the order

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

38 crores)]to be allowed as\ndeduction in each of the five successive previous years (commencing\nfrom A.Y. 2013-14) u/s 35D of the Act as an additional ground before\nHon'ble ITAT. Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case has allowed\nthe aforesaid claim of the appellant vide order dated 07-12-2021.\nCopy of the order

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 64(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Acit 25, Surya Niketan, Circle – 64 (1) Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aiopg4255H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rakesh Sehgal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

section 10(38) of the Act, being fulfilling the conditions prescribed therein. 3 That the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 28, New Delhi that in the share transaction resulting in profit, the motive of the appellant was to bring out his black money as legitimately earned LTCG for which exemption u/s 10(38

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S. PEGASUS SOFTECH (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material