M/S. HEMA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 Hema Engineering Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 12(1), C/O M/S Wahi & Co., New Delhi. K-1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Aaach 0118 F ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

section 115JB. The AO noticed that the assessee had shown tax free income of Rs. 3,93,701/- being dividend income from SBI mutual fund. However, assessee had not offered to tax any disallowance on account of expenses incurred in order to earn tax free income. After considering the assessee’s reply the AO determined the disallowance under Rule

AVTAR MOHAN BAHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 72(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

disallowed Rs.1 2 ITA.No.6121/Del./2017 Shri Avtar Mohan Bahal, New Delhi. lakh and Rs.15,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning dismissed the appeal of assessee on these grounds. 3. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the addition of Rs.1 lakh under section 80C of the I.T. Act and Rs.15,000/- under section 80D

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KAMAL GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year 2009-10

Section 80D. 4. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee has been attending the proceedings from time to time before the Assessing Officer as is evident from the various letters filed before the Assessing Officer. 5. That the Assessing Officer at no stage of time during the assessment raised any objection regarding the confirmations filed by the assessee

SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. The appellant’s income is to be taken as Rs. 15,84,676/- instead of Rs. 6,05,122/- taken in the computation of the assessment order based on the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account filed along with the return of income. No relief for deduction under section 80D

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN PROP., NOIDA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. The appellant’s income is to be taken as Rs. 15,84,676/- instead of Rs. 6,05,122/- taken in the computation of the assessment order based on the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account filed along with the return of income. No relief for deduction under section 80D

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MOHD RIZWAN, DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and the Assessing Officer has estimated the income on alleged bogus purchases @ 25%. However, we observe from the record that Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account and not brought on record the reasons for the same. After considering the submissions of the assessee

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN, DELHI

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito Brij Gopal Chauhan Ward- 60 (4), Room No.308- Vs A-7, Kondli F, Vikas Bhawan, I. P. Estate Delhi – 110096 New Delhi -110002 Pan Ahfpc5855M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. The appellant’s income is to be taken as Rs.15,84,676/- instead of Rs. 6,05,122/- taken in the computation of the assessment order based on the net profit shown in the Profit & Loss Account filed along with the return of income. No relied for deduction under section 80D

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

disallowed : Rs. 1,20,213 v. Add: Personal expenses : Rs. 18,482 1,52,50,621 3. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES i. As per the return : NIL ii. Unexplained Sundry Creditor : Rs. 54,29,787 ii. Unexplained in capital : Rs. 44,32,000 iv. Unexplained investment in fixed assets : Rs. 8,59,643 v. Deemed dividend

PANKAJ GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Sections 80C and 80D. It is claimed on behalf of the assessee that assessee has paid LIP amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- and 80C claim thereon is allowable upto Rs. 1 lac. Similarly, the assessee has paid Rs.26,446/- towards premium for hospitalization benefit policy. The assertion made on behalf of the assessee is supported by the documentary evidences produced

VIJAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vijay Gupta, Vs Ito, H.No.538, Pipe Line Road, Ward-34(1), Khasra No.154, Chhoti Pooth Civic Centre, Jln (Pooth Khurd), Bawana, Marg, New Delhi. Delhi-110039. Pan-Ajdpg6741Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C & 80D of the Act. Thus, the AO assessed the income at Rs.1,72,99,692/-, against the income of Rs.5,18,781/- declared by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thereby, Ld.CIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. GAUTAM GULATI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhry

disallowance of deductions u/s 80C, 80G and 80D of the Act etc. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 08.08.2018 in Appeal Nos. 372 to 374, 384, 385, 397 & 398/16-17 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before

SMT. VINAY MEHTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

section 54 of the Act, learned CIT (A) has given factually incorrect findings and also findings contrary to material available on record and thus, the said addition needs to be deleted, as such. 1.3 That further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of full benefit of indexation

M/S. RAMAN KUMAR SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, (“I.T. Act”, for short) wherein total income of the Assessee was determined at Rs. 80,52,480/- as per following computation: Income from House Property Income as declared 1,74,052 Business income Net Loss as per P & L a/c (-) 19,94,840 Less: STCG & LTCG

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

disallowance has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing the entire adverse material on record and without observing the principles of natural justice. 6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the entire cost of construction/renovation expenses of Rs.48,48,524/- as claimed