M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

148A and section 151 of the Act.\n5.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby denying the benefit of\nexemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the\nAct'). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nconfirming the order

HARISH BANGA,HISAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

148A(b) was issued solely for disallowance of expenses, and no new income was alleged to have escaped assessment. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 9,00,000/- paid to Smt. Suman Devi, treating the same as non-genuine and not allowable under section

MAMRAJ AGGARWAL,DELHI SADAR BAZAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance arbitrary and unsustainable.\n7. That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. AO erred in relying upon\ndocuments/statements seized from a third party which are not binding on the\nassessee and cannot form the basis of addition in the absence of any\nincriminating material found.\n8. That the impugned order under section 250 of the Act has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. RITU BALA, FARIDABDA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ritu Bala, Vs. Faridabad 4237 Indra Prashtha Colony, Haryana Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana Pan :Bdhpb1495B (Appellant) (Respondent)

148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 was passed with approval of specified authority along with notice under Section 148 of the Act. In case of assessee, specific information was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT under clause (i) to explanation (1) to section 148 of the Act. As per the specific information, Assessee has taken

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI vs. KOLAHAI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Kolahai, Infotech Private Limited Ward-14(3) , Room 129, First Floor Transport Centre No.305 Cr Building I.P. Punjabi Bagh New Delhi, Delhi- Estate New Delhi -110002 110034

disallowance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22-04-2021 was issued. In the pursuance of the Hon’ble supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444ITR 1(SC) a notice under 3 Income Tax officer, Ward

ITO WARD-58(3), DELHI vs. B.C.ENTERPRISES, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

disallowed the purchases made by the assessee as unexplained / non-existent purchase of Rs. 4,22,78,376/- and added back under the head PGBP, and also treated the sales of Rs. 2,53,351/- made by the assessee as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act. 3.1 The Learned AO relied upon information regarding transactions caried

DCIT, VIKASH BHAWAN vs. RAJAN KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukladcit, Vs. Rajan Kumar Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor, 31, Vijay Block, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Pan: Caapk8381E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 149 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs. 40,48,410/-. As per the information available with the department AO noted that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune

HARISH KUMAR,DELHI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

disallowing the short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act and adding the said amount. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee and revenue both are in cross appeals before us. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI vs. HARISH KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Harish Kumar Vs. Nfac, Delhi 5/21, Shanti Niketan, Chankaya Puri, South West Delhi, New Delhi – 21 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Harish Kumar, Room No. 1505, 15Th Floor, E-2 1/7, West Patel Nagar Tower, Dr. Sp Mukherjee New Delhi – 8 Civic Centre, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaipk9783G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca & Sh. Sumaksh Mahajan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.8.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi

disallowing the short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act and adding the said amount. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee and revenue both are in cross appeals before us. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

148A(d) and notice under section 148 by the AO have been issued and passed without obtaining valid statutory prior approval from thespecified authority as provided under section 151 of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ITD has erred both on fad and in law in confirming the disallowance

M/S JHS SVENDGAARD LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Jhs Svendgaard Vs. Dcit Laboratories Ltd. B1/E-23, Central Circle-31, New Mohan Cooperative Delhi Tuhglakabad, Badarpur, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcj5766G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv Revenue By Ms.Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’

disallowed the same under Section 37 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/03/2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31/03/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

148A for a notice issued under the old provisions of section 148 of the Act. The same cannot be upheld as the old provisions ceased to have force of law post 31.03.2021.” 4. Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

148A for a notice issued under the old provisions of section 148 of the Act. The same cannot be upheld as the old provisions ceased to have force of law post 31.03.2021.” 4. Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

disallowance, imposition of tax, and interest with reference thereto, as well as the quantification of taxable income and tax liability, are unjustified, erroneous, and unsustainable, and it is prayed that necessary directions be issued to the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) to grant appropriate relief in accordance with the law. 2.0 That, on the facts and in the circumstances

DIAMOND REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeal in ITA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 1260/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/S Diamond Realcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Shop No. 68, Building No. 38, Faridabad, Surya House, Near Pnb, Devli, Haryana-121001 Khanpur, New Delhi-110062 Pan: Aadcd6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Ms.Suman Malik, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025

disallowance, imposition of tax, and interest with reference thereto, as well as the quantification of taxable income and tax liability, are unjustified, erroneous, and unsustainable, and it is prayed that necessary directions be issued to the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) to grant appropriate relief in accordance with the law. 2.0 That, on the facts and in the circumstances

GDR FINANCE AND LEASING P. LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Gdr Finance & Leasing Vs. Assessment Unit, Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 323, Agrawal Plaza, Nfac. Dda Community Centre, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi – 110 088. Pan: Aaacg2363D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri Rupinder Aggarwal, Shri R.P. Mall, Shri Uma Shankar, Ms Suman Verma & Ms Vidushi Aggarwal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

148A(d) of the Act had been initialed by '‘jurisdictional assessing officer” and not by “faceless assessing officer”, which is against the mandate of section 151A of the Act and also, the E Assessment Scheme, 2022. Thus as such, the impugned proceedings and assessment thereto made were without jurisdiction and untenable in law. 4. That the findings of the learned

MARVELOUS CEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowance was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "250", "143(3A)", "143(3B)", "139(1)", "143(2)", "151", "148A

DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Vs. Acit, 98, Okhla Industrial Estate Central Circle-29, Phase Iii, New Delhi. Tehkhand, New Delhi – 110 020. Pan: Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi; Shri Satya Jeet Goel; & Shri Rajat Garg, Cas Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order

148A(d) of the Act appears to be without independent application of mind or tangible material, in the hands of AO. It has been alleged that appellant company has deposited 100 crores of VAT liability which proves its involvement in alleged VAT evasion. 9. In regard to these grounds ld. Counsel has also pointed out that even after the addition