SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A

VENKATESH RAGHAV RAO HEBBANI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 30.03.2022. In response, assessee filed return of income 26.07.2022 declaring gross income of Rs.27,07,956/- and net taxable income of Rs.26,78,220/- claiming deduction u/s Chapter-VIA to the extent of Rs.29,739/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

148A and section 151 of the Act.\n5.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby denying the benefit of\nexemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the\nAct'). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nconfirming the order

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

148A and section 151 of the Act.\n5.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby denying the benefit of\nexemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the\nAct'). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nconfirming the order

BHAGIRATHI KRISHNAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhagirathi Krishnan, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(5), C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co. 611, 6Th Floor, Vs Civic Centre, Surya Kiran Building, 19- K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan:Aqzpk1479J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the IT Act.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee has raised legal grounds of appeal challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 as well as addition on merit

CEB LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS CEB INC.),UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As The Assistant Commissioner Ceb Inc.), 1201, Wildson Of Income Tax, Blvd. Arlington, Va 22209, Vs Circle- 1(2)(1), International United States Taxation E-2 Block, Civic Care Of Address Centre, Minto Road, New First International Financial Delhi-110002. Centre, Level-2 Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra, India. Pan- Aadct5119K Assessee Revenue

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are all independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to supplement, to cancel, to amend, to add and/or otherwise to alter/ modify any or all the ground(s) of appeal stated herein above on or before its hearing before your honor

ESS GEE TRENDZ PRIVATE LIMITED,PEERAGARHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) is issued separately.” 6. We find that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the learned AO had stated that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus expenses from entities controlled and operated by Jain Brothers. However, in para 8.3 of the assessment order in the concluding portion

ESS GEE TRENDZ PRIVATE LIMITED,PEERAGARHI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) is issued separately.” 6. We find that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the learned AO had stated that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus expenses from entities controlled and operated by Jain Brothers. However, in para 8.3 of the assessment order in the concluding portion

ESS GEE TRENDZ PRIVATE LIMITED,PEERAGARHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) is issued separately.” 6. We find that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the learned AO had stated that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus expenses from entities controlled and operated by Jain Brothers. However, in para 8.3 of the assessment order in the concluding portion

ESS GEE TRENDZ PRIVATE LIMITED,PEERAGARHI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) is issued separately.” 6. We find that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, the learned AO had stated that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus expenses from entities controlled and operated by Jain Brothers. However, in para 8.3 of the assessment order in the concluding portion

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced and arbitrary conduct despite time sought by the assessee on 14.06.2022 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced and arbitrary conduct despite time sought by the assessee on 14.06.2022 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced and arbitrary conduct despite time sought by the assessee on 14.06.2022 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced and arbitrary conduct despite time sought by the assessee on 14.06.2022 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner

ASHISH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(1), DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

148A(d) on 27.07.2022 without giving sufficient time to the assessee for furnishing a reply, rendering the entire reassessment procedurally defective in a prejudiced and arbitrary conduct despite time sought by the assessee on 14.06.2022 and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating reassessment proceedings in a mechanical manner

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of LTCG claimed exempt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of LTCG claimed exempt