ITO WARD-4(1), GURGAON vs. SANDEEP SANDHA , GURGAON

sections": [ "143(1)", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "43B", "260A", "246A", "139" ], "issues": "Whether a disallowance based on a debatable

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

RANBIR SINGH SOROUT,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

A2Z INFRASERVICES LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-2, Arjun Nagar, Dlf Phase-1, Shankar Chowk, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Udyog Vihar, Sector-19, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम A2Z Infra Services Limited Dcit, O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Central Circle-27, Arjun Marg, Dlf Qe S.O., New Delhi. Sikanderpur, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aahca0139L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

SUNIL KUMAR,ALWAR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3, REWARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7634/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hill View Apartment, K-001, Ward-3, Neemrana, Behror, Alwar, Rewari, Rajasthan-301707 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ccmpk7200C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1081206915(1) Dated 26.09.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) R.W.S. 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. AO, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s)

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 3225/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac 341, Heritage Tower, Plot No. 1, Income Tax Officer, Sector-3, Dwarka, Ward-56(3), New Delhi-110078 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abppt7714C Assessee By: Sh. Rajendra Kumar Tripathi Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074785307(1) Dated 20.03.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

KOTA TRUCKS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Kota Trucks P. Ltd. Vs. Acit Bg-223, Sanjay Gandhi Circle -14(2) Transport Nagar, Gt New Delhi Karnal Road, New Delhi- 110042 Pan No.Aadck3550H Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Pratap Gupta, Ca (Virtual) Respondent Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

POONAM SABHARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

POONAM SABHARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-28(5), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

246A. 9.16 As a natural corollary, it is necessary to pin point with reference to the impugned order as to where exactly the lower authority erred. However, in present case, the appellant has falled to do so. 9.17 The original assessment (quantum) order (as a part of which the action of initiation of penalty, was taken) which is sought

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallowance of business expenses who has confirmed the remaining additions vide order dated 26.10.2012. It is also not in dispute that the assessee challenged before the Tribunal only claim of exclusion of AED credit of Rs.2547 lakhs but the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and the further appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal

MANMEGH SINGH KANWAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO,WARD-73(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Manmegh Singh Kanwar Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, 4R, 503, Gurjinder Vihar, Cpc Awho Township Greater Bangalore Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida U.P. Pan No.Avqps3897N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

1)(va) of the Act of 1961 was disallowed by the order dated 16.12.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A

ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed at Rs.23,29,62,420/- as per the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the cause of action for the assessee arises from the intimation issued under section 143(1

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

Disallowance of business expenditure on account of non- deduction of tax on payment to resident payee …………………………………. (Not reproduced as not relevant) III. Fee and penalty for delay in furnishing of TDS/TCS Statement and penalty for incorrect information in TDS/TCS Statement As per the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, a deductor is required to furnish a periodical TDS statement