M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194H of the Act was made. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant, it will kindly be appreciated entertained bonafide belief that no tax was deductible under section I94H of the Act in respect of the transaction under consideration. viii. It has been the case of the appellant that tax is not deductible

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

section 148 of 17 the Act, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income, for that we rely on the judgment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

section 148 of 17 the Act, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income, for that we rely on the judgment

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2007-08]

disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then he would have been justified as per Explanation 3 to section 147 to reduce the claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as well. [Para 20] In view of above discussion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction

ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD vs. KESHAV MEDICHEM P.LTD, FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

148. 19. In the present case, as is noted above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the justifications given by the assessee regarding the items, viz., club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment, but, however, during the assessment proceedings, he found the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as claimed by the assessee

DEVKI NANDAN BINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

148 was issued to the assessee, but, same was not complied with. The show cause notice Dated 11th December, 2017 was also served through affixture on 11th December, 2017. Since no compliance was made, A.O. proceeded under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. noted that there are deposits in Bank from M/s. JMD International

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

disallowances of ` 33,06,68,598/- under Section 80-I of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT vide its order dated 17.02.2006 allowed the assessee full deduction under Section 80-I, as claimed by the assessee. 10. Now we advert to the second re-assessment proceedings initiated on the ground that the carried

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Section ('U/s' for short) 143(3) of Income\nTax Act ('IT Act' for short) was passed on 09.02.2011 wherein the only addition made\nby the Assessing Officer ('AO', for short) to the return income (Rs.11,15,33,024/-)\nwas disallowance of Rs.1,06,500/- out of guest house rent amounting to Rs.\n4,26,000/-. Thereafter, Asstt. Commissioner of Income

UJJWAL MICROFINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

148. 19. In the present case, as is noted above, the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the justifications given by the assessee regarding the items, viz., club fees, gifts and presents and provision for leave encashment, but, however, during the assessment proceedings, he found the deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I as claimed by the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowance of Rs.3,88,42,025/- by rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80IA made by the assessee. 2.1. The Assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA. On appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal vide ITA.No.1920/Del./2013 order dated 13.01.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

148.” Similarly, the PCIT, while giving approval has also simply mentioned: “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act.” From the above, it is clear that none of the supervisory authorities have applied their mind. I find, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

148 TTJ 73 (Mum.)] 13 In view thereof, it is submitted that the provision for increase in price of material being an ascertained liability made on an actual and scientific basis for the reasons submitted above would also be allowable while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act. The Hon’ble Tribunal in appeal

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT xi) ITA No. 208 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

148 of the Act, it was not obliged to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before passing the assessment order. 9. On merits, the record reveals that the AO has made an addition under Section 68 and disallowance

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 147 and 148 of the Act. ” 6.3.4 Similar issue was before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT VS Tupperware India (P) Ltd., reported as 236 Taxman 494 (Delhi), date of order 10.08.2015. It has been held in paras 5 till 9, as follows: *5. Apparently, the Assessee did raise an objection to the order