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) 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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

144B of the Act at assessed income of Rs. 6,20,42,83,460/-. 3. On perusal of your balance sheet of column 5A & 5B, it has been observed that there have been sharp increase of Rs.14,49,91,615/- under the sub-head "Advance for properties" and Rs.42,85,51,442/- under sub-head "Advance to suppliers". During

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi PIN: 1100 73 Delhi. PAN: FHMPS9910M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advs. Department by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeals filed by the Appellant/assessee are against

BRAHAM SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 4757/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ita No.4756/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Braham Singh, Vs Assessment Unit, House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 73 Delhi. Pan: Fhmps9910M (Appellant) (Respondent)

House N0.57, Dhansa . Income Tax Department Raota, South West Delhi Delhi PIN: 1100 73 Delhi. PAN: FHMPS9910M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advs. Department by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.05.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeals filed by the Appellant/assessee are against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO, DELHI vs. IBRASA MOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed……”

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2017-18] Income Tax Officer, Ibrasa Motels & Resorts Private Room No.143, First Floor, Limited, A14, Gujrawala Town, C.R. Building, I.P Estate, Vs Part-1, Delhi-110009 New Delhi-110002 Pan Aaeci2261E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Abhishek Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2025

144B and made the addition of Rs.5,41,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. A perusal of the order shows that the assessee was not forthcoming in providing requisite details to the ld. AO. From the order of ld. CIT(A) reproduced herein below. It is evident that the ld. First Appellate Authority had based his relief