ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

delayed, but the delay was condoned. The core issue revolves around the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was not validly served on the assessee due to being sent to a wrong address and improper affixture

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarmanoj Kumar Singh Vs. Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh Central Circle-28 S-17, Ground Floor, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi- 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is condoned and appeal of the revenue stands admitted. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT, Range- 8, Delhi to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of Ld. AR the approval was given u/s 153D

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarmanoj Kumar Singh Vs. Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh Central Circle-28 S-17, Ground Floor, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi- 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is condoned and appeal of the revenue stands admitted. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT, Range- 8, Delhi to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of Ld. AR the approval was given u/s 153D

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

282 010 (Uttar Pradesh).\n(PAN : AAACP9604J)\n(APPELLANT)\nvs.\nDCIT,\nGhaziabad.\n(RESPONDENT)\nASSESSEE BY : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate\nShri M. Pathak, CA\nREVENUE BY : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CITDR\nDate of Hearing : 11.08.2025\nDate of Order : 19.09.2025\nORDER\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:\n1.\nThe assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned\nCommissioner of Income

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any\nelectronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information\nTechnology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service.\n2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to\ndocuments and records and entries in books of account and their\nrecognition as evidence

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any\nelectronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information\nTechnology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service.\n2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to\ndocuments and records and entries in books of account and their\nrecognition as evidence

PR. CIT-1 vs. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

delays in re-filing the respective appeals are condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 665/2015 & 666/2015 5. The short question that arises for determination in the present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PR. CIT-1 vs. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

delays in re-filing the respective appeals are condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 665/2015 & 666/2015 5. The short question that arises for determination in the present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

BHOLESHWAR CHOPRA,DELHI vs. WARD 68(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282/- under Section 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESL This adjustment is deemed to lack legal basis, as the contributions towards ESI and EPF were made in a timely manner. 5. The Assessee asserts that the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) at the Central Processing Center (CPC) unlawfully issued an order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adhering

BHOLESHWAR CHOPRA,DELHI vs. WARD 68(5) , DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282/- under Section 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESL This adjustment is deemed to lack legal basis, as the contributions towards ESI and EPF were made in a timely manner. 5. The Assessee asserts that the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) at the Central Processing Center (CPC) unlawfully issued an order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adhering

MORPHEUS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI-4, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Morpheus Developers Private Vs Pr. Cit, Ltd., Delhi-4, 1, Main Road, Delhi. Maujpur, Delhi – 110 053. Pan: Aaicm1972A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By : Ms Amisha S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pciit) U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) In Revision No.Pcit, Delhi-4/Revision-263/100000183556/2021 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 29.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Ito, Ward-17(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay In Filing The Appeal. On Hearing On The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Primarily For The Reason That There Were Some Issues Pending Before The National Company Law Tribunal Followed By Appeal, There Could Not Be Adequate Representation Of The Assessee. In Fact, In January, 2023, The Greater Noida Authority Had Cancelled The Plot On Which The Company Was Running The Project. Thus, We Are Of The Considered View That The Delay Although Of Substantial Period Of Around 746 Days, Deserves To Be Condoned.

delay although of substantial period of around 746 days, deserves to be condoned. 3. On hearing the ld. AR, we find that his contention primarily was that the ld.PCIT has issued notice u/s 263 of the Act in a mechanical manner merely accepting the proposal of the AO. The ld. DR has opposed the same and submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

282 of\npaper books and asked the Ld. AO to verify which were not controverted. In\nview of these facts, my ld. Brother upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and\ndismissed the appeal of the Revenue.\n7.\nFor analyzing the issue regarding the claim of the assessee on deduction\nu/s 54B of the Act, the relevant provision