TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

SHYAM SUNDER ,GURURGAM vs. ITO ( CIRCLE 4(1) , GURGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowed. The Assessing Officer also corrected the cost claimed for a particular agricultural land by restricting it to the assessee’s proportionate share as per the registered deed. 3.5 After allowing only the admissible portion of deductions under sections 54B and 54F and reducing the indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer recomputed the long-term capital gain at Rs.1

TALHA KHAN,MOHALLA AFGANAN PO AMROHA vs. ADDL.JT.DY.ACIT.NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2017-18 Talha Khan, Vs. National Faceless Mohalla Afganan Po Amroha, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Amroha-244221 Delhi Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Ejspk7379K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the explanation given by the assessee in this regard. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in iaw and being admitted fact on record, the AO has wrongly presumed cash deposits of Rs. 1,14,57,570 as deemed concealed or unexplained income under section 69A/115BBE through net taking

PROMILLA MATHUR,DELHI vs. AO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Promilla Mathur, Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac D-55, Gulmohar Park, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Afkpm7548E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Alok Mital, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Ground:- 1. The Order Passed By The Ai/Cit(A) Is Bad In Law, Wrong On Facts & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ao/Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Assessing / Upholding The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,25,293/- As Unexplained Despite Producing Documents On Record.

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 2 | P a g e 9. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the AO has erred, both on facts and in law, in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271F

SMT. RAJ BALA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

271F was also sent to the assessee by speed post on 15.06.2012. However, since the assessee has shown business income of Rs. 9,43,897/- in the above invalid return, and total Gross receipts of Rs.9,43,897/- in the Col. No. 51(a) of Part-A-P&L at Page No-5 of the return, blank

JOGINDER DAHIYA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

271F was also sent to the assessee by speed post on 15.06.2012. However, since the assessee has shown business income of Rs. 9,43,897/- in the above invalid return, and total Gross receipts of Rs.9,43,897/- in the Col. No. 51(a) of Part-A-P&L at Page No-5 of the return, blank

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VAVASI TELEGANCE P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

disallowing the claim of depreciation the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has only 'other income' in the nature of consultancy income reportedly received from outside India. 5 ITA No.5049/Del./2017 6.4 The appellant's contention that it was maintaining an office of about 11,600 square feet and employed approximately 60 personnel and there was no new addition

SIMRANPAL SINGH SURI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Simranpal Singh Suri, Vs Ito, Jg-1/77, Vikaspuri, Ward 45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Akzps3760Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2021 Order

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. 236 ITR 34 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex court has held that in determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis

AISHANI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowed various expenses claimed to the tune of Rs. 50,61,443/- and added it to the income of the assessee. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and u/s 271F for non filing of ITR. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before

DHARAMBIR,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usdharambir Vs. Pr. Cit Village-Nakhrola, Naharpur, C.R. Building, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aumpd4924E (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F were however Dharambir 3 initiated for belated filing of return of income. In essence, the AO did not find any deficiency in the explanation offered by the assessee towards source of cash deposits under enquiry in the reassessment proceedings. To put it differently, in the light of material placed in the reassessment proceedings by the assessee, the belief initially

UNICARE DEVELOPER & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 27(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Unicare Developer & Infrastructure Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(1), 71/7A, Ff, Rama Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcu3616N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2021 Order

Disallowance out of advertisement expenses of Rs.47,46,146/- Rs.1,58,20,489 ii) Addition on account of unexplained investment Rs.33,41,000/- iii) Addition on account of unexplained commission Rs.10,00,000/- expenses iv) Addition on account of unexplained advances Rs.1,00,00,000/- received from parties v) Addition of undeclared income of FD interest Rs.1