JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

reassessment proceedings and it was replied to by the assessee. The assessing officer was satisfied with the explanation and did not raise any further questions. The Tribunal has not erred in taking the view that it took, namely, that the CIT had overlooked the agreements dt.28th Feb.1995 and 30th September, 1999 which were on the record

JCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

reassessment proceedings and it was replied to by the assessee. The assessing officer was satisfied with the explanation and did not raise any further questions. The Tribunal has not erred in taking the view that it took, namely, that the CIT had overlooked the agreements dt.28th Feb.1995 and 30th September, 1999 which were on the record

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

va) of sub- section (1) of section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the sum has been realised within fifteen days from the due date." 20. This being the case, it is important to advert to the facts found in the present case. Both the CIT and the ITAT found, as a matter

MR. KANWALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

va) of the act. 7. Thereafter, learned assessing officer recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 15/03/2013 and issued notice under section 148 of the income tax act. According to the reasons recorded placed at page number 17 of the paper book , honourable Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003 – 04 to assessment year

MR. KANWALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

va) of the act. 7. Thereafter, learned assessing officer recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 15/03/2013 and issued notice under section 148 of the income tax act. According to the reasons recorded placed at page number 17 of the paper book , honourable Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003 – 04 to assessment year

MR. KANWALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

va) of the act. 7. Thereafter, learned assessing officer recorded reasons for reopening of assessment on 15/03/2013 and issued notice under section 148 of the income tax act. According to the reasons recorded placed at page number 17 of the paper book , honourable Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003 – 04 to assessment year

DR. SB KALIDHAR,PUNJAB vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2010-11 Dr. Sb Kalidhar Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Villa 709, Gillco Valley, Sector -14, Hisar Kharar, Sas Nagar, Punjab-140301 (Pan: Abspk1517Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. Sb Kalidhar, Assessee In Person. Respondent By : Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. Dr

va) of the Act." 8. A look at Section 143(2) is called for at this juncture. It is reproduced hereunder; "143(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section(1) of section 142, the AO shall- i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss

MEENAKSHI AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy

va) of the Act." ITA Nos. 4171-4175/Del/2015 8. A look at Section 143(2) is called for at this juncture. It is reproduced hereunder; "143(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section(1) of section 142, the AO shall- i) where he has reason to believe

AERO CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Rs. 4,24,39,963/-. In this case, besides other grounds, the assessee, has also taken the additional ground, that was filed on 8th May 2023, that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C( 13) in pursuance to Hon'ble DRP directions, is time barred and prayed for quashing

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

va) of the Act, the assessee submits that the said amount was accepted by the assessee after including the same in the total income due taxes were paid, for which the necessary copy of the challan were also produced before us. It is further seen that the copy of the said challan and the revised computation were filed before

M/S. SOUTH WEST PINNACLE EXPLORATION LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. South West Pinnacle Exploration Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 24 (1), Plot No.6, 4Th Floor, Sector 44, New Delhi. Gurugram – 122 003 (Haryana). (Pan : Aakcs3608R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2026 Date Of Order : 21.01.2026 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit (A)”, For Short] Dated 17.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issues Involved In The Present Appeal Are Squarely Covered By Various Decisions & He Heavily Relied Upon The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench In The Case Of Real Innerspring Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit (2025) 174

va). 10 Ground nos. 2 to 5; Addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the act for credit in the name of Gulzar Hire Purchase Pvt Ltd, including charging of higher rate u/s 115BBE of the Act; enhancement made in respect of interest paid and alleged commission. (c) Ground nos. 6 to 9; Addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

17 of 29 that issue, therefore, he restricted the disallowance of allocation of administrative expenditure to the extent of ₹ 20 lakhs only. In view of the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A as he has set aside the issue partially to the file of the assessing officer with a direction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

17 of 29 that issue, therefore, he restricted the disallowance of allocation of administrative expenditure to the extent of ₹ 20 lakhs only. In view of the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A as he has set aside the issue partially to the file of the assessing officer with a direction