SHANKAR DAYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(7), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowance of deduction claimed under 98[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

Section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance u/s 50C of the Act. She further

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAPID ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

disallowance of Rs. 2,52,80,000/-“ 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 26,99,24,830/-. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. The assessee, during the year under consideration, had purchased industrial unit

SUDESH SACHDEV ,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, DELHI

In the result appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyasstt. Year : 2019-20 Sudesh Sachdev, Vs. Dcit, 147, Ground Floor, Central Circle- 15 Lodhi Road Jorbagh, Delhi. New Delhi 100 003 Pan Ablps5027M (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C(1) of the Act by way of adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(ii) is unsustainable. Accordingly, I delete the addition. 7. Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

Section 50C but what transpires is that the case of assessee was selected for Sh. Sandeep Hooda limited scrutiny for examining deduction u/s 54 of the Act and based upon the analysis an addition was made by making a disallowance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

disallowance of purchases with respect of remaining 17 parties is arbitrary and without any basis. 24. Moreover, as regards the various other observations of the AO for holding that the purchases made by the assessee are not genuine, the assessee has submitted a point wise detailed rebuttal for each observation during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate

FASHION GROUP INTERNATIONAL,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 50C are not applicable to the same. 4. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the failure of the A.O. to refer the property for valuation to the D.V.O. 5. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

disallowed Rs. 1701685/-) Expenses on Transfer Rs. 399999/- Net Capital Gain Rs. 401338/- 3. The case of assesse was reopened u/s. 147 of Act in order to verify the fact that the perusal of sale deed showed that the stamp value of land was Rs. 8,81,68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

disallowed Rs. 1701685/-) Expenses on Transfer Rs. 399999/- Net Capital Gain Rs. 401338/- 3. The case of assesse was reopened u/s. 147 of Act in order to verify the fact that the perusal of sale deed showed that the stamp value of land was Rs. 8,81,68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C

HARKIRAN COMMAR,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-10, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalpr. Commissioner Of Mrs. Harkiran Commar Income Tax-10, 28, Poorvi Marg, Vs. New Delhi Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Pan: Aagpc2911C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sanjiv Chaudhary, Ca Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca & Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 O R D E R

50C which otherwise is beyond his jurisdiction. This view is supported by the decision of P&H High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rakesh Kumar [2023] 152 taxmann.com 398 wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed as under: “Assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits in bank account of assessee Assessing Officer

SATYA DHARMA HOTELS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 22(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Satya Dharma Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-22(4), New Delhi 110002 177, 1St Floor, Vigyan Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Vs. Pan Aahcs 0289 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.C Yadav, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Ca Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 01.03.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A)-08, New Delhi Is Contrary To The Facts & Bad In Law. 2. I) I Am Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Capital Gain Made By Assessing Officer. Ii) During The Assessment, Sec 55A Of Income Tax Act Has Not Been Considered By Assessing Officer For Valuation Of The Land As Requested By Us. Taking Rate Of Registering Authority & Not Consider The Fair Market Value Which Is Very Low. Iii)The Ld. Ao Has Not Considered The Addition Made During The Year & Added Back In The Income Of The Assessee Company. 4. Demand Calculated By A.O. Is Prejudicial To The Company And, If Appeal Is Not Allowed To Be Proceeded It Amounting To Against The Law.

disallowance of addition in land of Rs. 2935000 is not tenable and not justified. 7. I am genuine in the eye of law and followed valid procedure for computation of capital gain. 3. The ld. counsel of assessee submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the business of running a hotel on rent. During the course of assessment proceedings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTAJEE & COMPANY, DELHI

Accordingly, Cross Objection No. 7/Del/2016 and the Appeal in ITA No.\n4761/Del/2015 filed by the Assessee are dismissed

section 50C are applicable in the case of appellant firm when\na) the property falls in ‘extended laldora'.\nb) the property falls in non-confirming clusters of industrial concentration.\n2. That the appellant craves to add/alter/delete/amend any ground(s) of appeal\nbefore or at the time of hearing.”\nGrounds of Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No.4761/Del/2015