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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,58,56,968/- invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above said addition rejecting the contention of the assessee that the transaction being not in the nature of sale of either land

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

1,95,19,2000/-. Total loss of revenue including surcharge & interest comes to Rs. 3,05,,19,060/- which makes the assessment order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. As per provisions of Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer has to make a reference to DVO if the value taken by assessee is less than

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:-

disallowance of the benefit of indexation. 2.3 That the leasehold right in the land having been acquired by the Appellant upon the date of allotment in terms of section 2(47), the period of holding of such right should be considered from the date of allotment. 2.4 That the Appellant had paid the entire cost in Financial Year

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

1. Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the penalty on the addition by disallowing the expenditures on estimated basis which are not specific. 2. Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the penalty imposed on additions made on the basis of deeming provisions under section 50C

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

1 is applicable to property\nsold by assessee.\nii.\nAO-pleading Xii. Whether the ITAT was correct in\nrejecting the suggestion of the AO-pleading for disallowance of\nexpenses u/s 14A of the Act.\niii. Whether ITAT was correct in affirming the order of CIT(A)\nreducing the disallowance of Rs. 95,75,917 made by the AO\nwith respect

AKASH JUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 60(1), NEW DELHI

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

section 50C would not applicable to the assessee even though this proviso is applicable to the assessee. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in holding that assessee has not Incurred Rs.75,000/- on account of cost of improvement.” 3. Brief facts of the case

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