ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

house property and thereby the returned income of Rs. 18,10,42,260/- was recomputed at Rs. 30,93,07,020/-. Admittedly, assessee had preferred an appeal 5 1097/Del/2023 against this intimation and the same was withdrawn for which assessee claims. The reason for withdrawal was that regular scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was initiated. 10.1 Now if we look

USHA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 44(6), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

house property income and income from other source cannot be held as a normal feature. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801(SC), and stated that while deciding any issue surrounding circumstances/ evidence and test of human probabilities should also

NARENDER KHETWANI,NEW DELHI vs. WARD 29(6), NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1328/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Narender Khetwani, Vs Income Tax Officer, 26, Gadaipur Mehrauli, M. G. Road Ward-29(6), Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aatpk4735D Assessee By: Sh. Rohan Sogani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2025 Order

demonetization amounting to Rs.44,65,500/-; as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 2 Narender Khetwani 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee through his learned counsel vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts

PRIYANKA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(3), DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Priyanka Vs. Ito, Ward 50(3), Block 5/25, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Avnpp5108Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.07.2025 On The Solitary Ground Relating To Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 30,65,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,23,910/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served. The Reasons For Selection Of The Case For Scrutiny Were, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & High Value Receipt Of Cash Shown From Third Parties In Response Data”. The Assessee Was Found To Have Deposited Cash Of Rs. 30,65,000/- During The Demonetization Period In Fy 2016-17 In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Punjab National Bank. The Assessee Claimed That The Said Cash Was Received By Her

demonetization period in FY 2016-17 in her bank account maintained with the Punjab National Bank. The assessee claimed that the said cash was received by her as gift from her deceased grandmother as a gift post her death. The AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee to be satisfactory in respect of the sources

LEELA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 35(8), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

house property and income from other sources. The assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs with HDFC Bank during demonetization

POONAM SODHI,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7105/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sodhi, 5217, Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Bfvps-5961-R बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 8,03,000/- Comprising Of Income From House Property & Interest Income. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Large Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Vis-À-Vis The Returned Income. Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax

house property and interest income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine large cash deposits during demonetization

KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7105/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sodhi, 5217, Dlf Phase Iv, Dlf City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Bfvps-5961-R बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vododara [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 8,03,000/- Comprising Of Income From House Property & Interest Income. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine Large Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Vis-À-Vis The Returned Income. Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income Tax

house property and interest income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine large cash deposits during demonetization

ARUN PRUTHI,RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ITO

Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs 8,40,000/- is restricted to Rs 6,12,000/- and the grounds raised in this respect stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

house property(ies) in question, as upheld in the lower appellate proceedings as under: “5.5 In respect of the addition made towards the rental income of the various properties held during the year under consideration the appellant has filed written submission and for the sake of convenience the same is reproduced as under: 1. Addition on account of Deemed Income

VINOD KUMAR TIWARI,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-5(2)(2),GB NAGAR,NOIDA, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Acit, C-36, Sector-39, Noida- Circle-5(2), 201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acept6151H Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

demonetization period in the facts and circumstances of the instant case . 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a senior citizen deriving income from salary of Rs 17,80,800/-, income from house property

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarsubhash Chand Gupta Vs. Acit, B-41, Kailash Colony, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi – 110 054 New Delhi Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit, Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Central Circle – 29, 43/1M Rajpur Road, New Delhi Civil Lines, North Delhi, New Delhi – 110 054 Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2529/Del/2022 & Ita 1. No.1557/Del/2021 For Ays 2015-16 & 2017-18, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New

demonetization period in the sum of Rs.2,52,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee during the year under consideration had derived income from house property

ACIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. SUBHASH CHNAD GUPTA, DELHI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarsubhash Chand Gupta Vs. Acit, B-41, Kailash Colony, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi – 110 054 New Delhi Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit, Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Central Circle – 29, 43/1M Rajpur Road, New Delhi Civil Lines, North Delhi, New Delhi – 110 054 Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2529/Del/2022 & Ita 1. No.1557/Del/2021 For Ays 2015-16 & 2017-18, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New

demonetization period in the sum of Rs.2,52,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee during the year under consideration had derived income from house property

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-28(5), CIVIC CENTRE J.L. NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI vs. MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

House Property income of Rs. 88,550/-, income of Rs. 9,57,895/- from jewellery business, loss of Rs. (-) 63,54,568/- from Commodity Business and income of Rs. 533/- under the head income from other sources). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for reasons that there were large cash deposits during demonetization

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

house property, profit from business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. If an item of income falls under one head, it cannot be shifted to another head merely because of the AO's approach in taxing the same at a higher rate. Where the nature and source of the transactions are spelt out, the source of income

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

house property, profit from business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. If an item of income falls under one head, it cannot be shifted to another head merely because of the AO's approach in taxing the same at a higher rate. Where the nature and source of the transactions are spelt out, the source of income

GULKANDI DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 51(5), DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

demonetization period (Rs.) 1 9,00,000/- 030710100030363 Andhra Bank 2 2,00,000/- 11405865476 State of Bank of India 3 2,45,000/- 8082010010500 Oriental Bank of Commerce 3. The only source of income of the assessee is rental income and the assessee has been receiving rent primarily in cash. Since, the assessee is a super senior citizen

SANT LAL AGGARWAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

house property and income from other sources, and accordingly, the appellant filed his return of income on 31.12.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 16,58,720/-. Copy of the acknowledgement of return of income alongwith computation of income has been placed at pages 1-49 of PB. 3 It is submitted that the assessee maintains books of account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), MUZAFFARNAGAR, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. SHAH NAWAZ RANA, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Vs Shah Nawaz Rana, Ward 3(2)(4), 786, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar. New Rana House, Muzaffarnagar (Up). Pan: Abtpr6568E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

demonetization huge amount of cash was deposited in 2 the bank accounts of these entities. However, during the course of survey and from post survey proceedings it was found that there were two main persons namely Smt. Rani Sharma and Shri Yash Pal Gupta, who were involved in providing accommodation entries of sale & purchase bills to various beneficiaries from many

VINOD KUMAR BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanvinod Kumar Bajaj, Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, Shivaji Enclave Road, Central Circle 32, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110027. (Pan : Aadcr0962Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Amit Garg, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2024 Date Of Order : 20.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [For Short ‘The Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 15.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Under Section 153Ar.W.S 143(3) Is Illegal & Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Having Valid Jurisdiction.

House Property and Other Sources. 4. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was carried in the case of Bajaj Group on 20.04.2017 at various premises including the premises of the assessee as well as the locker opened in the name of the assessee. During the course of search

RAVINDER GROVER,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarravinder Grover, Vs. Acit, 56/42, Punjabi Bagh, West Circle-20(1), Delhi, Delh Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aerpg2356J

house property, income from other sources. The original return of income for assessment year 2017- 18 was filed by the assessee on 01.08.2017 declaring total income of ₹28,55,670/-. The assessee maintained the following bank accounts:- 1. Kotak Bank A/c No. -1811790465 2. Syndicate Bank A/c No.-90061010008014 3. HDFC Bank A/c No. 1592280000044 4. HDFC Bank