NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

AJIT BATRA,DELHI vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Ajit Batra, Vs. Ito Shop No.9 Bhagwan Nagar, Civic Center New Delhi South Delhi- 110014 Pan No.Ahlpb5923H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naman Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

condone the delay. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of selling pharmaceutical products. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 23.9.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.4,44,70,210. The case was selected for scrutiny for the purpose of verification of “large value of cash deposits during demonetisation

M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 10. Ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature and no spectator arguments were advanced before us and hence same is dismissed. 11. Ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is against the existence of permanent establishment. On the issue of taxability of offshore supply and disallowance

MOHD. JAWED,BIJNOR vs. ITO WARD - 3(3), BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

section 271(l)(c) are not applicable. 3. That this vary fact was ignored by the learned CIT(Appeal), that penalty was imposed on the basis of estimate of income and so the estimated profit @8%. Income assessed was based on estimate basis. As Assessee’s profit was Rs. 158520/-. against Rs. 430010/- declared. In the order of assessment

AMRIK SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KAWALPREET KAUR,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalamrik Singh Through Legal Heir Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Kawalpreet Kaur, 1(5), Ghaziabad, 206, Ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Uttar Pradesh Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Pan: Achps0677E Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Challenging The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31/08/2018 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Appellant. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Department'S Representative & Perused The Material Available On Record.

condone the delay of 614 days in filing the present Appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) on 29/12/2016 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,12,86,210

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing in Form No.10CCB. The Assessing Officer sent the intimation under section 143(1) dated 11-11-2022 disallowing the claim of under section 80IAC of Rs.67,64,210

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

delay is condoned in both the\nappeals and the same are admitted for hearing.\n3.\nFurther, it comes up that in AY: 2019-20 the assessment was completed\nu/s 153C of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.1,04,65,425/- as against\nincome returned u/s 139(1) of the Act at Rs.89,25,914/-. The assessee had\nPage

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

210 days in filing the appeal and delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. ITA 493/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘Tribunal’] dated 22 June 2023 and poses This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

delay is condoned in both the\nappeals and the same are admitted for hearing.\n3.\nFurther, it comes up that in AY: 2019-20 the assessment was completed\nu/s 153C of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.1,04,65,425/- as against\nincome returned u/s 139(1) of the Act at Rs.89,25,914/-. The assessee had\nPage

SURYA LAXMI INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshsurya Laxmi Industries, Vs. Dcit, 7-B, Bigjos Tower, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abwfs8662D Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the assessee by Surya Laxmi Industries 1007 days and dismissing the appeal inlimine in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The due date for filing of income tax return

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SAJJAN SINGH, RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Shri Sajjan Singh, Central Circle-17, F-180, C-Scheme, Room No. 103, First Floor, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur, Hall No. 1,Ara Centre, E-2, Pan:Apfps5687B Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

210 ITR 886/76 Taxman 620, wherein it was held that : "Substantive law is concerned with the ends which the administration of justice seeks ; procedural law deals with the means and instruments by which those ends are to be attained. The latter regulates the conduct and relations of courts and litigants in respect of the litigation itself; the former determines their

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. PRAMADITYA, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs Pramaditya, Cc-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E Co No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. Acit, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, Cc-14, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E

Section 131 of the IT Act, wherein he was again confronted with the various documents seized and cash found during the course of search and the consequent surrender made by him in respect of his two concerns and in response thereto, he again confirmed the surrender of undisclosed income amounting to Rs.1,21,43,210/- and Rs.1

BHARAT LAL DGAR,FARIDABAD vs. PRCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is, therefore, allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

delay is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to this case is this that, the initial assessment order was completed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act at the returned income of Rs.2,45,210

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

condone the delay where the Assessee rectifies the defect even after the period stipulated thereunder or such further period allowed by the AO as long as the rectified return was filed before the assessment was finalised. 27. It was urged by Mr. Manjani, learned counsel for the Assessee that if the revised rectified return was filed beyond the time allowed

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DCIT

condone the delay where the Assessee rectifies the defect even after the period stipulated thereunder or such further period allowed by the AO as long as the rectified return was filed before the assessment was finalised. 27. It was urged by Mr. Manjani, learned counsel for the Assessee that if the revised rectified return was filed beyond the time allowed