SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

delay of 295 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and appeal is admitted for consideration and adjudication. 6. On merits, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of cash deposited towards repayment of home loan being 75% of total cash deposit

ACIT, DELHI vs. PAYAL GARG, DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit Vs. Payal Garg, Delhi-110002 H. No. 03, Sector 19 I Block, Pocket A, Rohini, Delhi 110085 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agjpg 9417 E Appellant .. Respondent

69C read with Section 115BDE of the Act. However, the Ld. First Appellate Authority was satisfied with genuineness of purchases and deleted the addition for which the revenue is in appeal and cross-objections have also been filed by the assessee. 4. At the outset, it comes up that the cross-objections have been filed with the delay

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. S K INTEGRATED CONSULTANTS, DELHI

delay stands condoned.\n\n3. The assessee had filed cross objections and primarily the contention of\nthe ld. AR was focused on the cross objections which were defended by the ld.\nDR by relying the orders of the ld. tax authorities. It comes up that the assessee\nfiled the return declaring an income of Rs.1

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PURE DEPARTMENTAL STORE PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the delayed filing. However, the appeal was dismissed on merits due to low tax effect, as it was hit by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, which states that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["148", "143(3)", "250", "69C

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee through grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is regarding invocation of her revisionary authority under section 263 by the ld. PCIT, Central Kanpur, at Meerut through his order dated 27.03.2025. As per brief factual matrix of the case, appellant had filed original Return

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

69C of the Act by holding the same as bogus purchases from Shri Amit Kumar (Prop M/s Rishabh Trading Company). 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Ld. AO has not provided any material for reopening of the assessment. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

KIRAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-43(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was not issued with the proper approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner as required by the amended Section 151(ii) of the Act. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal held the reassessment action unsustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

MONTREAUX RESORTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes to above extent

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimontreaux Resorts Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, Top Floor, Mohandev Building, 13, Ward-17(1), Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaecm8369D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing paper appeal considering that filing of electronic appeal was not possible in as much as no log-in details are/ were available for the company owing to - (i) dispute(s) within the management; (ii) seizure of books of accounts by the Company Law Board; and (iii) restrain on Directors to act on behalf

ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO ECOTECH LIMITED, PUNJAB

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

condone the minor delay of 8 days in filing of the appeal. 1 | P a g e 6371_DEL_2025_ACIT VS Hero Ecotech Ltd 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CTT(A) has erred on the facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,82.21,201/-made under Section 69C

RAJESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. I.T.O WARD 34(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

section 69C of the Act. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Both parties reiterated their stands, with no dispute

DR. SARVESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 57(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. I take the appeal being ITA No.2387/Del/2023 in the case of Jagdish Prasad as the lead case. 5. Brief facts of the case

JAGDISH PRASAD,DELHI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 57(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. I take the appeal being ITA No.2387/Del/2023 in the case of Jagdish Prasad as the lead case. 5. Brief facts of the case

KARAMBIR,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 69A and 69C of the Income Tax Act without proper examinations of the bank statement. and on the borrowed satisfaction without application of minds. 3. That no notice was served on the appellant during the pending assessment proceedings and first appellate proceedings. The appellant could not be responsible for the wrong doings of the professional counsel. The responsible professional

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

69C of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 without any proper legal basis, evidence\nor material on record, hence, liable to be deleted.\"\n2.\nWith regard to condonation of delay in filing the appeal of the assessee,\nld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessment in this case was\npassed under-section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNKAN TRAVELS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee in C

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

condoning the delay. 8.1 In respect of the ground, the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that due date of filing of the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was on 30/01/2011 and 29th and 30th, January being Saturday and Sunday, the appeal was filed on 31/01/2011 and, therefore, there was no delay in filing

M/S KBC ESTATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2012-13

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 19,19,401/- even after acquiescence to the Assessee’s case in principle. The action being arbitrary, erroneous, unlawful and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.” 2. In this appeal there is a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this behalf

NOVA ESTATES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 18(4), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Despite Such Scrutiny No Addition Was Made In The Original Assessment Proceedings.

69C of the Act on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid to brokers and the same runs Page 1 of 7 ITA No. 76.Del.2021 Nova Estates P. ltd. contrary to ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Chain House International Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) 5691/2019. 2. That

HARI CONSOLIDATE PRIATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-11(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 69C of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that assessee had not effectively pursued the appellate proceedings and failed to respond to various notices issued. This has brought the assessee before the Tribunal. 5. The appeal was filed late