ANKIT GARG,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-35(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaankit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 35 (3), L – 153, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 052. (Pan : Amhpg1493N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.10.2024For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Trading, Sales Of Socks, Fabrics & Hosiery Etc. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 25.01.2018 For A.Y. 2017-18

demonetization period and lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR in comparison to Tax Audit Report". Subsequently, several

ITO,WARD-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HONEY PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: us by taking sole ground of appeal. “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of the addition of Rs.2,06,50,000/- made by Assessing officer on account of cash deposit during demonetization.”

demonetization period. Further a disallowance of Rs. 3,94,941/- out of business promotion expenses was also made. In first

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI FOODSTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, KARAMPURA, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Delhi Foodstech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 308, Shivlok House-1, Karampura, New Delhi Pan: Aafcd2062D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

demonetization was disallowed by the Learned AO. Notably, the cash deposited during demonetization was sourced from the same parties from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. RAKHEE WALECH, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 5987/Del//Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs Rakhee Walecha, Room No. 1210, E-2, Block, Civic 455, Mandakini Enclave, Centre, New Delhi Alaknanda, New Delhi Pan: Aaipw4418J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Anuj Tiwari, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025

demonetization, disallowed Rs. 83,660/- claimed under the head of damage and penalty, disallowed Rs. 2,73,769/- claimed on account

ITO, WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUN-NEW CREATIONS AND MARKETIGN PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

demonetization. iii) Disallowance under chapter VIA i.r.o M/s Valleria Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” 5. The Ld. CIT(A) had observed as follows

KEI INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

demonetization. iii) Disallowance under chapter VIA i.r.o M/s Valleria Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” 5. The Ld. CIT(A) had observed as follows

BCC CEMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -30, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization followed by disallowance of Rs. 63,652/- in the nature of statutory dues for want of compliance of necessary

RAM NIWAS GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Learned CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 13/12/2022.

demonetization period; (ii) Disallowance of Rs.2,72,000/- has been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 3. Appellant/assessee

SMT. KOMAL TYAGI,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsmt. Komal Tyagi, Vs. Acit, 363, Purani Chungi, Central Circle-3 Faridabad Nit H.O, Faridabad-121001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Avtpt 5412 F Appellant .. Respondent

demonetization apart from issue of disallowances of expenses and agriculture income. Similarly, in AY 2018-19 there was disallowance u/s 56(1) followed

V V TRANSPORT,ROHTAK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] V.V. Transport, Vs Acit, 96-A, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak Subhash Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aadfv5250G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.20248 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Rohtak/10584/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Petrol Pump. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 28.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,29,25,730/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reasons Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 24.09.2018. After Considering The Submissions & The Books Of Accounts Submitted, The Ao Had Taken No Adverse Inference On The Issue Of Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period However, He Has Made Disallowance Of Inr 12,20,700/- By Holding That The Assessee Has Made Interest Free Advances To Staff & To One Of The Partners Whereas It Is Paying Interest On The Borrowings. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance Made Out Of The Interest Payments Towards The Staff Advances Given However, Confirmed The Disallowance On Account Of Advances Given To The Partner Of Inr 1 Crore.

demonetization period however, he has made disallowance of INR 12,20,700/- by holding that the assessee has made interest

SUBHASH CHAND,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] V.V. Transport, Vs Acit, 96-A, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak Subhash Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aadfv5250G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.20248 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Rohtak/10584/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Petrol Pump. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 28.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,29,25,730/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reasons Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 24.09.2018. After Considering The Submissions & The Books Of Accounts Submitted, The Ao Had Taken No Adverse Inference On The Issue Of Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period However, He Has Made Disallowance Of Inr 12,20,700/- By Holding That The Assessee Has Made Interest Free Advances To Staff & To One Of The Partners Whereas It Is Paying Interest On The Borrowings. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance Made Out Of The Interest Payments Towards The Staff Advances Given However, Confirmed The Disallowance On Account Of Advances Given To The Partner Of Inr 1 Crore.

demonetization period however, he has made disallowance of INR 12,20,700/- by holding that the assessee has made interest

AVON METERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetisation period. (b) Lower amount disallowed u/s 40A(7) in Part A-OI of ITR in comparison

JCIT(OSD), DELHI vs. AVON METERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetisation period. (b) Lower amount disallowed u/s 40A(7) in Part A-OI of ITR in comparison

DYNAMIC TRANSMISSION LTD.,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetisation period. (b) Lower amount disallowed u/s 40A(7) in Part A-OI of ITR in comparison

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI vs. NAVEEN ARORA, LAJPAT NAGAR, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

demonetization period.\nThe other issue was of disallowance of Rs.2,79,47,174/- оn ассоunt\nof unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act as the assessee

MANJU GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-INT TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

demonetization cannot be treated as unexplained. However, merely, because the assessee did not furnish the valuation report of the house before and after renovation/repair, Ld. First Appellate Authority, on purely estimated basis, disallowed

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL,MORADABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deepak Kumar Agarwal Vs Ito Z-13, Deendayal Nagar, Ward-2(1) Phase-2, Mda, Moradabad, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Afgpk4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca & Sh. Ip. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poojaswaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

demonetization period, Rs. 23,04,500/- and also disallowed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,50,481/-. 4. Aggrieved

SAKET AGARWAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -45(2), DELHI , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Saket Agrawal, Vs Ito, 392/1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-45(2), Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi Delhi-110085. Pan-Aavpa3410D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10489/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 10,02,940/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetization & Due To The Survey Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee.

Disallowance of Sales Rs. 3,14,94,237/- (u/s 68): The assessee claimed that cash deposits during demonetization were from