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

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

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

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

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

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

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

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

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

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

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

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on ground no

house of assessee only for service of paper dt. 24.12.2017 on dt. 26.12.2017 and there was no evidence on the file that ITI has been deputed for statement and no questionnaire available on the office records file. V. That the assessee submit all the evidence of Income and securities and commodity losses which is verified by the ITO in long

SMT. SUCHITA GOYAL,DELHI vs. PCIT,-15, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2860/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Smt. Suchita Goyal, Pcit-15, Plot No.32, First Floor, Road No.43, Vs. Room No.1702, E-3 Block, Ashoka Park, Extension, S.P. Shivaji Park, Civic Centre, Minto Road, West Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aafpg5320G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property income has been derived during this year. We also find that the “Counsel for assessee” has submitted a certificate on the paper book that all these documents were 5 before the AO/PCIT”. We may add that the interest certificate at page 142A of the paper book is dated 17.03.2025 only and hence certainly it was not part

DCIT, DELHI vs. PERSONIV CONTACT CENTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2860/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Smt. Suchita Goyal, Pcit-15, Plot No.32, First Floor, Road No.43, Vs. Room No.1702, E-3 Block, Ashoka Park, Extension, S.P. Shivaji Park, Civic Centre, Minto Road, West Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aafpg5320G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

house property income has been derived during this year. We also find that the “Counsel for assessee” has submitted a certificate on the paper book that all these documents were 5 before the AO/PCIT”. We may add that the interest certificate at page 142A of the paper book is dated 17.03.2025 only and hence certainly it was not part

MADHAV RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-61(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Madhav Rastogi, Vs Ito, 2, Sreeniketan Apartments, 24, Ward-61(2), Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110096. Pan-Ahopr9376D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022

142A was made to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department "" Emphasis Supplied 27. Similar to the case cited above, in the given scenario, it is not the case of the AO that the purchase of the property was not recorded or was concealed. Infact, the rental receipts from the property were added to the income in the very

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

142A of the Act for the purported determination of the FMV of the immovable properties owned by AJL. 6 ITA No.1251/Del./2019 2. The Appellant prays that the said reference and consequential determination of the purported FMV be held to be illegal. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I TO VII GROUND NO. VIII: COMPUTING THE PURPORTED FMV BEYOND THE VALUE

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. PREETI MITTAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

142A of the property No.151 & 152, Deppali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi along with seized material. He observed that the assessee has accepted ownership of respective property in its preliminary statement and in statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. The Valuation Report was also provided to assessee on 29/08/2019. However, during the course of assessment C.O. Nos.07 & 08/Del/2023 proceedings, AO observed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. PUNEET MITTAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

142A of the property No.151 & 152, Deppali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi along with seized material. He observed that the assessee has accepted ownership of respective property in its preliminary statement and in statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. The Valuation Report was also provided to assessee on 29/08/2019. However, during the course of assessment C.O. Nos.07 & 08/Del/2023 proceedings, AO observed

VINOD ANAND,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

The Appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vinod Anand Vs. Dcit, House No. 2288, Circle-Ii, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. The Ld. AR through the rejoinder had stated that in the purchase deed it has been mentioned that the appellant has purchased the vacant plot whereas in the sale deed it has been mentioned that the appellant has sold land with building. It was stated that a valuation report has been furnished before the AO in the support

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

house property\n(As discussed in return)\nLong Term Capital Gain\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.12,60,858/-\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

house property\n(As discussed in return)\n\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\n\nLong Term Capital Gain\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\n\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section

DCIT CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. AANSHIKA MITTAL , DELHI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

property is higher that the value shown by the assessee. I.T.A. Nos. 833, 831 & 828/Del/2022 3 CO Nos.9 & 10/Del/2023 (in ITA Nos. 833 & 831/Del/2022) 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not file any explanation to the said Valuation report. 4.(a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. SUMIT MITTAL , DELHI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

property is higher that the value shown by the assessee. I.T.A. Nos. 833, 831 & 828/Del/2022 3 CO Nos.9 & 10/Del/2023 (in ITA Nos. 833 & 831/Del/2022) 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not file any explanation to the said Valuation report. 4.(a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous