FARIDABAD SERVICE STATION,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-30(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

HANS RUBBER & SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MEERUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

VHS ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7- 2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

VHS ENTERPRISES ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7- 2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

PUSHPA SHARMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

RAMA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

ASHIRWAD CARBONICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-3(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7- 2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Flying Fabrication, Vs. Income Tax Officer, The Tax Chambers Advocates Ward-1(4) & Legal Advisors, C-177, Gurgaon Defence Colony, Lgf, New Delhi Pan :Aadff9825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

RAJAN BANQUET PVT.LTD.,MORADABAD vs. ACIT-1, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

UNITED COFFEE HOUSE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. United Coffee House, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-15, Connaught Place, Ward-52(4), Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaafu1260G (Appellant) (Respondent)

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

RSG SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7- 2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

SONA FASHIONS INC,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

RAVINDRA NATH SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CPC, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1784/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ravindra Nath Saini, Vs Acit, 51, Pashim Marg, Vsant Vihar, Cpc, New Delhi-110057 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjps2875D Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Batra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

STEEL BIRD INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 63, NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1573/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Steel Bird International, Vs Jcit, 2E/3, Jhandewalan Extn., Range-63, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfs7296K Assessee By : Sh. Vikas Katyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

ORIENT CRAFT LTD. ,DELHI vs. ASST. DIT, CPC , BANGALORE

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

APEX INSURANCE CONSULTANT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -3(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4748/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 54, Basement Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Ward-3(1), Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3234H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

MAGIC AUTO PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 13 , DELHI

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 27/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Cpc, Road, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4873C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

TOSHIBA WATER SOLUTIONS & SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

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

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention

UTTAM INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

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

42,58,574 being employees' contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Rs. 30,68,583 being employers' contribution under section 43B of the Act. Felt aggrieved by this assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who decided the same vide orders dated 15-7-2005. Though the CIT(A) accepted the contention