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.

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was bad in law. 2. Initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was completely on erroneous facts, without application of mind, so the same should be decided as void ab initio. 3. That the failure to invoke the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act for determining the accurate market value

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

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

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has no merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

1. That the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law. 2. Initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was completely on erroneous facts, without application of mind, so the same should be decided as void ab initio. 3. That the failure to invoke the provisions of Section 50C of the Income

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

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the 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

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

1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the 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

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

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)

1,00,31,250/- addition on account of alleged LTCG by invoking 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

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

1)(c) of the Act was received. It is also correct that the country has been facing spread of Corona Pandemic since March 2019. There had been lot of panic and loss of lives, people were in grip of tear and uncertainty. 7. Therefore, looking to the material available on record and the statement made on oath

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

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

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)

sections is also wrongly worked out. 11. That the Assessing Officer and NFAC has erred in issuing the notice U/s 271(1)(c) and initiating the penalty proceedings ) when the assessee appellant has not concealed the particular of any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify

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)

1. The order of AO has erred in law and on facts both while making the addition of Rs. 27,54,640/- to total income of the assessee. 2. The AO has erred in law and highly unjustified in rejecting the for the source of payments made by the Assessee for purchasing the new residential house property at the cost

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

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

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

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment

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

1) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, \"That the\nappellate court has power to allow additional evidence not only if it\nrequires such evidence \"to enable it to pronounce judgment\" but also for\n\"any other substantial cause.\" There may be cases where even though the\ncourt finds that it is able to pronounce judgment