ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

section 54 of the Act except to the extent that the assessee submitted a sale agreement which is not registered, agreement may be not completed/obeyed fully or revoked in future. Thus Ld. AO denied the exemption of Rs. 2,81,58,300/- u/s 54 of the Act solely on this reasoning and has assessed the income of the 3 ACIT

PANKAJ CHHATWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

house no. C-64 Sec- 50Noida which is jointly owned with her wife and notional value of rent has been taken of full share of Rs.4,20,000/- as per section 23 as claimed by the appellant; 10.2 That impugned order passed u/s 250 by NFAC/CIT-A, dismissing appeal of assessee and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO are totally

MUKESH KUMAR,SONIPAT vs. ITO, SONIPAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

house no. C-64 Sec- 50Noida which is jointly owned with her wife and notional value of rent has been taken of full share of Rs.4,20,000/- as per section 23 as claimed by the appellant; 10.2 That impugned order passed u/s 250 by NFAC/CIT-A, dismissing appeal of assessee and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO are totally

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act, whereby, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee at an income of ₹133,46,92,080/- after making addition of *44,77,708/- on account of disallowance under Section 24(b) of the Act and also disallowed a sum of ₹40,10,848/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with order dated 13-08-2020 passed by Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT"), thus being null and void and deserves to be quashed/ set aside. 3 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP was not justified and have erred

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with order dated 13-08-2020 passed by Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT"), thus being null and void and deserves to be quashed/ set aside. 3 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP was not justified and have erred

CBRE SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL, JOINT, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Cbre South Asia Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Additional, Joint, Deputy, Assistant Pti Building, 4, Ground Floor, Commissioner Of Income Tax, Parliament Street Central Delhi, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Parliament House, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 01 Pan :Aaacc9308A (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, New Delhi Delhi PIN: 1100 01 PAN :AAACC9308A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Kshitij Bansal & Ms. Supriya Mehta, CAs Department by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 14.03.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PANKAJ GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

144B of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act').\n2\n2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:-\n1. That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on\nfacts by treating the purchases value amounting to Rs.53,50,000.00\nof residential flat/ house as purchase transaction from undisclosed\nsource.\n2.\nThat

BENZI INAPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

144B of the Act on the basis of the documents / information available on record as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by furnishing required information / documentary evidences as asked for. Even before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee did not appear though several opportunities were provided to it. Having

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

House: 139 ITR 182 (P&H) 158 In the facts of the present case, the Pr. CIT, in respect of all the issues, have merely held that further enquiry and examination is required, without even recording as to how the assessment order sought to be revised is erroneous on such issues; no error whatsoever has been pointed out regarding

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usmicrosoft Corporation (India) Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024

House of Parliament.” 9. In our considered opinion pursuant to the faceless regime introduced by the Govt. of India, National e Assessment Centre becomes Income Tax Authority vested with the powers of issuing notice, transferring the case, framing the assessment etc. Once, any document which is (ld DRP directions dated 25.03.2022 in the instant case) is uploaded in the ITBA

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(3)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Itd and all the payments made to the developers are duly\nreflected in the bank statement of the assessee and his father Mr. Tej Singh Gupta.\nThe bank statements are enclosed from pages 26 to 38 of the Paper Book. Hence,\neven on merits, there is absolutely no case for treating any part of the payment\nmade

ATAR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 70 (1)-DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House of Parliament.\"\n\n7. I find that the Notification suggested in section 151A(1) of the Act has\nbeen issued only on 29-3-2022. When the faceless regime for income escaping\nassessment stood notified only on 29-3-2022, the Learned FAO assuming\njurisdiction by issuing notices under section 142(1) of the Act under faceless\nregime

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

House of Lords in England has made it clear that breach of natural justice nullifies the order made in breach. If that is so then the order made in violation of the principles of natural justice was of no value. If that it so then the Page6 application made for the settlement under Section 245-C was still pending before

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SUNITA BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

SUMAN KISHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

section 1 28.12.2019 CIT(A), NFAC, 144 r.w.s. 147 of the [Assessment Year 2012-13] Delhi order dated Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 2. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2013-14] Delhi order dated the Income Tax Act, 30.01.2024 1961. 3. 30.03.2022 CIT(A), NFAC, 147 r.w.s. 144B of [Assessment Year 2014-15] Delhi order

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

144B of the Act at assessed income of Rs.\n6,20,42,83,460/-.\n3.\nOn perusal of your balance sheet of column 5A & 5B, it has been observed\nthat there have been sharp increase of Rs.14,49,91,615/- under the sub-head\n\"Advance for properties\" and Rs.42,85,51,442/- under sub-head \"Advance to\nsuppliers\". During