DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIA vs. M/S AJAY REALCON PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE RESIDENCY PVT. LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE COMTRADE LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs M/S Religare Comtrade Ltd Circle-21(1), (Formerly Known As Religare New Delhi. Bullion Ltd.), D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aaecr8405P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sunil Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Under Section 250 (6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds No.1 & 2 Raised By The Revenue Relate To The Same Issue Of Loss Incurred On Account Of Trading In Gold Derivatives Which Was Disallowed By The Ao Treating It As Speculative In Nature, In Terms Of Its Definition U/S 43(5) Of The Act, Which, However, Was Allowed By The Ld.Cit(A). The Said Grounds Read As Under:-

section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue relate to the same issue of loss incurred on account of trading in gold derivatives which was disallowed by the AO treating it as speculative in nature, in terms

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S BRIGHT BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2021-22] Dcit Vs M/S. Bright Buildtech Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle -1, D-35, Anand Vihar & Vihar, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, Anand Vihar, S.O-East Delhi, Noida-201301. Delhi-110092 Pan-Aaccb7981J Appellant Respondent

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] emanating from assessment order dated 31.12.2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 04.01.2022 at the premises of the ACE and Rudra Group

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S. ACE INFRACITY DEVELOPERS PVRIVATE LTD, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year 2022-23] Dcit Vs M/S. Ace Infracity Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Plot No. Ib, Gautam Budh A.R.T.O Complex, Nagar-201301 Sector-33, Noida-201301. Pan-Aakca8693E Appellant Respondent

disallowable expenses including interest on delayed TDS payment, loss on sale of fixed assets and CSR expenditure which was rightly added back by the Assessing Officer in the income of the assessee. 5. That the order of CIT(A) being erroneous in law and facts be set aside and order of the A.O. be restored. 6. That the above grounds

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

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

250 of\nthe Act dated 09th September 2025.\n4.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and\ncircumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO,\nthereby, in confirming the denial of the benefit of section 11\nof the Act, to the Appellant and in treating the expenditure\nincurred by the Appellant as non-genuine

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

250 ITR 488 (Bom.) in support of his contention that the Assessee was obliged to file its return even though it claimed its income was not chargeable to tax by virtue of Section 10(22) of the Act. 20. In addition to the non disclosure of surpluses recorded in the books, Mr Sawhney submitted that the unaccounted cash

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

5. 20.12.2019 Uththaan 13,12,500 6,65,250 Yes 6. 14.05.2020 PAN-AAJU0183G 12,89,400 6,44,700 Yes 7. 07.05.2020 End Poverty 9,87,840 4,93,290 No PAN-AATE3346B TOTAL 2,75,89,740 1,37,94,870 4.1 Admittedly the donations made as part of CSR expenditure were suo-motu disallowed by the appellant

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

250 of\nthe Act dated 09th September 2025.\n4.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on the facts and\ncircumstances of the case in upholding the order of Ld. AO,\nthereby, in confirming the denial of the benefit of section 11\nof the Act, to the Appellant and in treating the expenditure\nincurred by the Appellant as non-genuine

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

disallowing 50% of the depreciation in respect of assets which were acquired by the assessee and put to use on the same date i.e. 0n 31.03.2019 ignoring the material fact that the assessee itself had claimed only 50% of the deprecation. 10. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above grounds during

JET TECH SYSTEMS,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1)(3), NOIDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 250(6) of the IT Act. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without providing by him or directing the Ld. AO for providing the documents required by the appellant which were collected by the Ld. AO in pursuance of direction

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

5 of the VSVS Act, the penalty on disallowance of interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- settled in VSVS should had not been levied on the assessee. Further, it was contended by the Ld. AR that the penalty on disallowance of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/-, in view of the CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 23.04.2024, should had not been

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CAMPUS EAI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

250/-; ii) Dubai Leading Technologies UAE amounting to Rs. 2,40,27,500/- and iii) OIT Managed Services Mauritius amounting to Rs. 2,65,03,316/- aggregating to Rs. 9,34,37,066/-. 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 15.9.2020 held that the above payments