SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant-assessee is an individual and was during the year engaged in the business of Manufacturing of Machinery and machinery Parts in the name and style of M/s Titan Hydraulics (India) and also engaged in the business of Manufacturing

AMIT GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

reassessment order is also ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in rejecting the application of condonation of delay

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condonation of delay are allowed and appeals are admitted for hearing. Application for admission of additional grounds:- 8. In these applications assessee seeks to admit following additional grounds of appeal:- Additional Ground No.1 That under the facts, proceedings w/s.147/148 are unwarranted since initiated on the basis of information and documents found and seized in search of a 3rd party, from

MOHD. JAWED,BIJNOR vs. ITO WARD - 3(3), BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

reassessed income). 2. The Learned CIT(Appeal) has not appreciated the facts that assessee neither furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or nor it was held that there was any concealment of income on the facts of the case nor any material was placed regarding filing of inaccurate particulars nor concealment of income so provision of section

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to alleged negligence of previous counsel. 2. Taxability of loan/advances as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) in the hands of the shareholder. 3. Validity of reassessment

KIRAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-43(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

delay of 11 days, which the assessee attributed to the impugned order not being served correctly. The assessee also raised the issue of invalid approval for the reassessment notice.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in all kinds of blankets in the trade name of “M/s. Khurana Wooltex”, filed his return of income on 26.09.2018, declaring total income

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

reassessment notice was issued despite the absence of any failure on the appellant's part to disclose material facts fully and truly. As a result, the entire assessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio. 3. Improper Characterization of Transactions: 3.1 That the CIT(A) and AO incorrectly treated the reimbursements received from Anupam Chempharma

SHIMLA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3) , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Us Which Is Filed In Paper Book At Page

condone the delay and proceed to hear of the case. Shimla vs. ITO 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR raised the issue of non serving of notice with the improper address and, subsequently, preferred not to press the same. He brought to our notice findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and the relevant remand report. He prayed

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment

SHILA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royshila Builders & Vs. Ito, Ward 23(2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Flat No. 50, Aakshardham Apptt., Pocket-3, Dwarka Sector- 19, New Delhi-110075 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0470K Appellant .. Respondent

delay is hereby condoned. The appeal is, therefore, admitted. 5. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal challenging the initiation of proceeding under Section 147 of the Act and further completion of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act as without satisfying the statutory pre-condition envisaged in the above section and without jurisdiction and, therefore

JAGDISH PRASAD,DELHI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 57(1), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. I take the appeal being ITA No.2387/Del/2023 in the case of Jagdish Prasad as the lead case. 5. Brief facts of the case

DR. SARVESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 57(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. I take the appeal being ITA No.2387/Del/2023 in the case of Jagdish Prasad as the lead case. 5. Brief facts of the case

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI vs. OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view