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

230/- as against the income determined in the earlier order u/s 143(3) dated 30.03.2015 of Rs.13,53,460/- by making an addition of Rs.46,01,770/-. This addition is an account of treatment given to the amount received by the appellant during the year from M/s. Anupam Chempharma Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yashita Finance Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.15

ITO, WARD 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. SHYAM PAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 154 of the Act, which was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. There is delay of 230 days in filing this appeal. There is no delay condonation

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

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

JAGRUK MAHILA GRAMUDHYOG SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Jagruk Mahila Gramudhyog Commissioner Exemption Circle, Sansthan, Cgo Complex, Ghaziabad, Ews-22, Ada Colony, Vs Uttar Pradesh-201009 Ramghat Road, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh-202001 Pan-Aaaaj7483P Assessee Revenue Assessee By Ms. Madhulika Raghav, Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026

230/- CPC Bangalore determined income under section 143(1) at Rs.97,66,255/-. The determined income included denial of exemption on account of late filing of Form under section 10B dated 25.07.2022, filed on 23.09.2022. The ld. Counsel submitted that the delay in filing of Form 10B was condoned

ELLORA INRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently cancelled and set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh reasoned assessment order based on facts and issues discussed in the revisional order. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel at the outset pointed that

ROOP V K JAIN FOUNDATION,MEWAT vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e. 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

RS INDIA INFRAPOWER PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishirs India Infrapower Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, Gl Business Centre, Dundahera, Ward-3(4), Old Delhi, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aaecp9526H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the income tax act. Assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal before us. 5. This appeal is delayed by 71 days. Ground number 1 of the appeal of the assessee is a prayer for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee submits that there was a delay in filing

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE vs. BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER PRODUCTS SERVICES(INDIA) PVT. LTD., LAJPAT NAGAR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order

MOHD. ALAM QUERSHI,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalmohd. Alam Quershi, Income Tax Officer, 0, Gol Kothi, Depduty Ganj, Ward-1(1), Moradabad-244001, Vs. Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aadpq4002B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca & Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 17.02.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10282979 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received That There Were Larger Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee & There Is Mismatch In The Income Declared By The Assessee & Credits In The Bank Account & Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 06.04.2021. Mohd. Alam Qureshi Vs. Ito Thereafter, In Terms Of The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 3005/2002, The Said Notice Was Treated As Notice U/S 148A(2) Of The Act. After Passing The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act, A Fresh Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 29.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed The Return On 28.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,90,230/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B At An Income Of Rs. 58,64,382/- By Making Addition Of Rs. 54,74,132/-.

230/-. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B at an income of Rs. 58,64,382/- by making addition of Rs. 54,74,132/-. 3. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4 Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before

MANISHA ARORA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-29(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Manisha Arora, Income Tax Officer, C-4, Greater Kailash, Ward-29(1), South Delhi Vs Delhi Delhi-110048 Pan-Adtpa8801D Assessee Revenue

230/-. The ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the explanation of the assessee for the delay in filing of the appeal and the condonation for delay was rejected by the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the present appeal was not maintainable in view of the provision of section

GOSWAMI BHAGWAN LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

230) starts with the words "any income received by any person on behalf of...... Intention of the legislature is clear. If the conditions of sec. 10(23C) are satisfied, then the entire income or receipts of the Institute or the Organisation will be exempt. Vice- versa if the conditions are not satisfied then the entire income or receipts shall

THREEPENCE CRAFT ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 44(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

delay of 38 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee raised the following grounds in this appeal: - 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act is bad, both

THREEPENCE CRAFT,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IX, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

delay of 38 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, the assessee raised the following grounds in this appeal: - 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act is bad, both