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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22)(e

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

E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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) And C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In ITA No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. G.D. Goenka

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

22,80,000 directed to allow after verification 10. Commitment charges 2,54,24,680 2,19,47,951 — [GOA No. 3] [GOA No. 3] - 11. Depn. to be allowed after 7,68,370 — verification on Bhikaji Cama and [GOA No. 6] - Disallowance of Loss 5,15,34,000 12. [GOA No. 7] 13. Debit entries in the Rent Received

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

22,80,000 directed to allow after verification 10. Commitment charges 2,54,24,680 2,19,47,951 — [GOA No. 3] [GOA No. 3] - 11. Depn. to be allowed after 7,68,370 — verification on Bhikaji Cama and [GOA No. 6] - Disallowance of Loss 5,15,34,000 12. [GOA No. 7] 13. Debit entries in the Rent Received

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

22,80,000 directed to allow after verification 10. Commitment charges 2,54,24,680 2,19,47,951 — [GOA No. 3] [GOA No. 3] - 11. Depn. to be allowed after 7,68,370 — verification on Bhikaji Cama and [GOA No. 6] - Disallowance of Loss 5,15,34,000 12. [GOA No. 7] 13. Debit entries in the Rent Received

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

2(1)(e)23. Digitally Signed By:NEERU Signing Date:04.04.2026 12:18:42 Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2024 Page 26 of 48 14. Section 29A of the Act does not, in terms, bar an application for extension of the mandate of an arbitrator in the event of the delivery of an award. There is no such prescription anywhere

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

Section 2(22)(e) reads as under: "dividend" includes- (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being

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

section 2(22)(e). However, on the finding that such expenses could have been directly incurred by these companies from their own bank accounts, the contention of the appellant was not accepted and the addition of Rs.46,01,770/- was made in the order passed. 4.3 Aggrieved by the said addition, the appellant had preferred an appeal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

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

22)(e) of I.T. Act on account of 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

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

e-mails / communications for submitting them with my Reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by the B.C.C.I. Many of these pertain to auction of franchisees in 2008 and 2010 and sale of commercial/media rights of I.P.L-2 and are available with me; c. For your convenience I am therefore forwarding to you, my Reply and the voluminous documents submitted along

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M: The appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee arise out of the order of the ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi dated 1.8.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The Revenue in its appeal has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.98.50 lakhs made

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income