SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in all kinds of blankets in the trade name of “M/s. Khurana Wooltex”, filed his return of income on 26.09.2018, declaring total income

RISHI RAJ JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing on merits of the case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee's premises at D-70, Defence Colony, Delhi was searched on 26.07.2017 wherein jewellery worth Rs. 2,29,43,309/- was found out of which jewellery worth Rs.59

KIRAN MAHANA,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Kiran Mahana Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -27 Trough Legal Heir Ved New Delhi Parkash Mahana,229/39, New Delhi West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110008 Pan No. Aippm6862K (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the 56 days delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)” is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2.On the facts

DR. PRIYA NARULA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INT. TAX 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

69B, 69C or 69D under which the addition is to be made. Further, Ld. CIT-A erred in law and failed to appreciate that on the said facts of the Case, provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act could not be invoked and accordingly the Assessment Orders U/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2019 ("assessment orders) are arbitrary in nature and against

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 vs. MAMTA AGARWAL

Appeal is dismissed along with all the pending

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

delay of 177 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 191/2022 1. The present Income Tax appeal arises out of common impugned order dated 6th October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 6185/Del/2018 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 vs. SUMAN AGARWAL

Appeal is dismissed along with all the pending

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

delay of 177 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 189/2022 1. The present Income Tax appeal arises out of common impugned order dated 6th October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 6181/Del/2018 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The facts

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 vs. KAVITA AGARWAL

Appeal is dismissed along with all the pending

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

delay of 177 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 190/2022 1. The present Income Tax appeal arises out of common impugned order dated 6th October, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 6178/Del/2018 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The facts

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S MIRAGE HOMES PVT. LTD.

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

condone the delay in filing as well as the delay in refiling the appeal. 5. The applications are disposed of. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:02.12.2025 11:33:11 Signature Not Verified ITA 686/2025 Page 2 of 5 ITA 686/2025 6. The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S MIRAGE HOMES PVT. LTD.

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are

condone the delay in filing as well as the delay in refiling the appeal. 5. The applications are disposed of. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:02.12.2025 11:33:11 Signature Not Verified ITA 686/2025 Page 2 of 5 ITA 686/2025 6. The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. SH. HOTCHAND TECHCHAND PUNJABI

delay in re-filing is 7 days. 2. Having regard to the period involved in filing and re-filing the appeal, we are inclined to condone the same. 2.1 It is ordered accordingly. 3. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:26.12.2023 11:44:47 Signature Not Verified ITA No.701/2023 Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BAJRANG LAL BANSAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 69B of the Act, 1961. ITA 182/2010 Page 3 of 4 6. It is settled law that the primary burden of proof to prove under- statement or concealment of income is on the revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Delay of 4 days in filing of the Revenue’s cross appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. We advert to the first and foremost common issue of section 68 unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.8,50,81,803/- made

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

Delay of 4 days in filing of the Revenue’s cross appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. We advert to the first and foremost common issue of section 68 unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.8,50,81,803/- made

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S MIRAGE HOMES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay of 73 days in filing and 708 days in re-filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2. The applications stand disposed of. CM APPL. 75444/2025 3. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 691/2025 Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:03.12.2025 18:20:09 Signature Not Verified ITA 691/2025 Page