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

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

142A of the Act to Department’s Valuation Officer ( DVO ) for determining fair market value (‘FMV’) of house property as on 01/04/2001 was unlawful and invalid. b) Both the independent registered valuer’s reports as relied upon and furnished by the Appellant ought to have been accepted and made the basis for estimating/determining FMV of house property

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

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

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

6. The Assessing Officer has nowhere in his order mentioned or countered my refusal on issuance of verification letters. 20. It has further been stated in the said order that notices under Section 143(2)/142(1) were issued to me. It is hereby acknowledged that the said notices were issued to me vide letter dated July 14, 2017 which

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

142A of the Act. The DVO vide its report F. No. DVO/IT/Jaipur/T 09/1/2020-21/34 dated 15.06.2021 provided his valuation report in which property has been valued in respect of construction at Rs. 1,94,56,300/- against the value of construction declared by assessee of Rs. 1,68,98,979/-. The said valuation report and the facts were confronted

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

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

CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, 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

M.S. BEDI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

house of 4.73 acres was undervalued. The AO referred the matter to the Department Valuation Cell by issuing a commission under Section 131 of the Act for finding out the correct area of the farm and also for finding out the extent of the Assessees‟ investment in the said farm. 4. The Department Valuation Officer („DVO‟) submitted a report estimating

H.S. BEDI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

house of 4.73 acres was undervalued. The AO referred the matter to the Department Valuation Cell by issuing a commission under Section 131 of the Act for finding out the correct area of the farm and also for finding out the extent of the Assessees‟ investment in the said farm. 4. The Department Valuation Officer („DVO‟) submitted a report estimating

R.S. BEDI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs

house of 4.73 acres was undervalued. The AO referred the matter to the Department Valuation Cell by issuing a commission under Section 131 of the Act for finding out the correct area of the farm and also for finding out the extent of the Assessees‟ investment in the said farm. 4. The Department Valuation Officer („DVO‟) submitted a report estimating