RAJESH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

50C of the Income Tax Act, but due to a filing error, these documents were mistakenly submitted in the penalty order appeal rather than in the quantum appeal. Despite being filed, the CIT(A) did not consider these reports in the penalty appeal, which further prejudiced the appellant’s case. 5. That the first appellate authority also failed to appreciate

UPMA SHUKLA PROPRIETOR TROUBLESHOOTERS,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs Upma Shukla Proprietor Troubleshooters, Ito Upma Shukla, House No. 731, Ward 2(2), Sector-9A, Gurgaon. Hsiidc Building, Pan No. Adzps1670E Vanijaya Nikunj, 5Th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon. Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income of Rs. 4,34,060/- on 31.03.2010 under the head “Income from other sources”. The AO considered the issue of long term capital gains and short term capital gains and passed the order u/s 143(3) making the following

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.

delays in re-filing and filing the captioned appeal stand condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA 192/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:04.07.2025 13:00:29 Signature Not Verified ITA No.192/2025 Page 2 of 6 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], inter alia

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.

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

delays in re-filing and filing the captioned appeal stand condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA 192/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:04.07.2025 13:00:29 Signature Not Verified ITA No.192/2025 Page 2 of 6 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], inter alia

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II vs. SH. SURENDRA SINGH

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

condone the extraordinary delay of 496 days in re-filing the appeal. 2. Nevertheless, the appeal has also been examined on merits. 3. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against an order dated 5^^ April, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA No. 6136/Del/2012

ASHOK ANEJA,HARYANA vs. PR. CIT, , ROHTAK

Accordingly, the grounds raised are sustained. The appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaashok Aneja Vs. Pr. Cit, House No. 30, Rohtak, Haryana Sukhdev Nagar, Panipat Haryana-132103 Pan : Aaqpa2793Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 2. The facts in brief are that Ld. PCIT observed from the assessment order that assessee had transferred immovable property for Rs. 61 lakhs while the registration authority has adopted its value at Rs. 1,72,00,000/- for Stamp Duty purposes therefore, as per provisions of Section 50C

HARENDRA SINGH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD - 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Harendra Singh, Vs Ito, Vill. Nizampur, P.O-Khurja Ward-3(2), Junction, Tehsil-Khurja, Bulandshahr (U.P.). Bulandshahr-203132 (U.P). Pan-Aosph9924A Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2022

condone the delay and admit the present appeal for hearing. 3 | P a g e FACTS OF THE CASE 8. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the Assessing Officer [“AO”] was having an AIR information about the sale of immovable property [M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd.] for sale consideration of Rs.61

SH. ANIL SWARUP,MEERUT vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

delay of two days which being minor is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee individual had furnished the return of income declaring income from salary, income from property and other sources and also income from Long Term Capital Gains. During the year under 09.03.2010 an immovable property bearing

SH. ALOK SWARUP,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

delay of two days which being minor is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case, the assessee individual had furnished the return of income declaring income from salary, income from property and other sources and also income from Long Term Capital Gains. During the year under 09.03.2010 an immovable property bearing

VAG INFOTECH ,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-53(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2013-14 Vag Infotech, Vs. Acit, Circle 53(1), D-42, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 049 (Pan: Aaafv2681C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not deleting the various addition/disallowances as stated above, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SUNIL KUMAR,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

50C has already been held as invalid and void ab initio by the district court, therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer and uphold by the NFAC is highly arbitrary, unjustified and tenable. The assessing officer and NFAC has failed to appreciate the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and made the addition/ disallowances without any basis and reasons

KAVYA SAURABH RASTOGI,MORADABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarkavya Saurabh Rastogi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Vishwa Autar Jamani, Moradabad A-61, Lajpat Nagar, Moradbad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Aipr8080J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for AY 2012-13 on 31.03.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 3,47,870/-. In this case an information was received through Annual Information Return (AIR) that the assessee sold immovable property value

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidence under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants