ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance u/s. 68 actually comes to RS. 10,46,00,000/-. In appeal filed by the Assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of RS. 1,10,00,000/- in respect of I World Business Solutions 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- in respect of KG Embroidery Mills Ltd. vide order dated 28.6.2017. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed by the AO to 10%. 7. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 8. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forego any ground(s) of the appeal raised above

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

6) were uncompleted. M/s Neelkanth Enterprises M/s Mittal Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. M/s Jyoti Enterprises M/s Keshav International The explanation of other parties are given in the written submission on page………… 8 a] Photocopy receipts for filing of VAT returns (Sales Tax returns) along with its “Summary” for the financial year 2008-09 to prove that the declared purchase

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

6,159.90 lacs, the amount of Rs. 1,034.90 was made on the basis of actual supplies made upto the end of the year as per price amendments actually issued as on 31.03.2010 lacs, detailed working whereof is enclosed in paper book and therefore, such amount cannot in any case be disallowed on the ground of the same being contingent

HV METAL ARC PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of 2% out of the total expenses of Rs. 37,90,33,493/-, amounting to Rs. 75,80,669/-, was made. (2.1) Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who, vide aforesaid order dated 29.12.2017 dismissed the Assessee’s appeal, on the ground that no compliance was made to notices of hearings issued

ASHISH DHAM,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

250 issued case fixed for hearing on 04/02/2016. (v) On 04/02/2016 case was adjourned to 11/02/2016. No one attended on 11/02/2016 or till the passing of this order. From the opportunities given to the assessee and his non compliant attitude, it is clear that appellant is not interested in prosecuting his case. As there is nothing on record to rebut

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

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

250 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was revised under Section 147 of the Act to an income of ` 1,30,73,67,920/- by an order dated 16.03.2000, which was later modified under Section 154 by order dated 31.03.2000 reducing the income to ` 1,04,57,24,720/-. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, during the course of assessment proceedings

PROMOTIONAL CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-28(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.748 /Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Promotional Club Income Tax Officer, D-815, New Friends Colony, Ward-28(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi - 110025 Vs. Minto Road, New Delhi Pan: Aajfp4348R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

250(4) & (6) and Rule 46A(4) of the Income Tax Act. 1 Promotional Club 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds no. 3 & 4 suo-moto raised against the arbitrary addition of Rs.5.90 Cr made by AO invoking section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE and without appreciating the fact that it was contractual liability and refunded

INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

6,17,357/- while computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) without appreciating that the same was already disallowed by the appellant in its return of income. 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in computing credit of Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT”) to be set off in terms of provisions of Section 115JAA

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

KAPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Kaplan India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No. 15, Circle-5(1), Okhla Industrial Estate-Iii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 (Pan: Aaics9919F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. Shri Parth, Adv. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.03.2019

disallowance of expenditure incurred towards group medical insurance made by the AO are now being contested in the present appeal by the assessee. The following grounds have been raised: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the assessment order passed under section

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, 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

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

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