CONPLEX TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 145(3) of the Act; sustaining disallowance of losses claimed as also addition of Rs. 32,43,285/- to the income of the assessee and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Registry noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 121 days. The assessee filed an application dated 14.03.2018 for condonation

MOHD GULZAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 63(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual having income from business and filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.8,04,680/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO rejected books of account of the assessee and estimated

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

SUPER BRANDS LTD (UK),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

145 days, 21 days and 46 days respectively. 5. The contents of the application for condonation of delay have been duly considered and since the ld. DR has not raised any strong objection against the condonation of delay and finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeals on or before

M/S. SUPERBRANDS LIMITED (UK),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

145 days, 21 days and 46 days respectively. 5. The contents of the application for condonation of delay have been duly considered and since the ld. DR has not raised any strong objection against the condonation of delay and finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeals on or before

INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)- 2 vs. M/S HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

delay is condoned and the applications stand disposed of. 1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 22 ITA 620/2019 and ITA 622/2019 nd 2. Since both the present appeals arise out of a common impugned order and raise identical questions of law, the same are being decided vide this common order. May, 2018 passed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

SINGLA APPARELS PVT LTD ,GANDHI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same for hearing. 6. Both appeals have common and identical issues therefore, both appeals are adjudicated by a common order for the sake of convenience. 7. First we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18]. ITA No.3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] 8. Brief

SINGLA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same for hearing. 6. Both appeals have common and identical issues therefore, both appeals are adjudicated by a common order for the sake of convenience. 7. First we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18]. ITA No.3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] 8. Brief

SONIA MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

SWATY MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

VIDVATA INTERVIEW MAKERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Vidvata Interview Makers Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd, 902, Shyam Kunj, Gurgaon Plot No.26, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400059 Pan No.Aaccv2915J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Manish Rastogi, Advocate Sh. Uma Shankar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr

condoning the delay in filing the appeal, vide order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), dated 26-12-2024. 2. For that the NFAC erred in failing to appreciate that the assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in filing the appeal within the time prescribed in section 249(2) of the Act, which

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) on 27.09.2022, thus, there is no question of taking any reference from the enquiries carried during the course of survey or of any event which is occurred after completion of the assessment order, therefore, any such enquiry cannot be made the basis to hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudice to the interest of Revenue. Thus

WACHOVIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

145/- under section 68 of the Act. 3. Interest under various sections could not have been charged and included in the computation of tax demand. 4. The order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 5. The case file reveals that there is a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed

M.M.CONSTRUCTION,MORADABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

delay of 4 days in filing the instant appeal by assessee is, thus, condoned. 3 The Revenue has filed the appeal (ITA No. 2805/Del/2019) with the following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Moradabad erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

ITO, WARD-1(1), MORADABAD vs. M.M.CONSTRUCTION, MORADABAD

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

delay of 4 days in filing the instant appeal by assessee is, thus, condoned. 3 The Revenue has filed the appeal (ITA No. 2805/Del/2019) with the following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Moradabad erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

CHALLENGE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

delay of 4 days in filing the instant appeal by assessee is, thus, condoned. 3 The Revenue has filed the appeal (ITA No. 2805/Del/2019) with the following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Moradabad erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2

RG TECHNOLOGIS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 20(2), DELHI

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

delay of 4 days in filing the instant appeal by assessee is, thus, condoned. 3 The Revenue has filed the appeal (ITA No. 2805/Del/2019) with the following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Moradabad erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2