EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

251 ITR 263 upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, stating that there can be no addition in the hands of a company for moneys received towards share capital. The Court held that, if necessary, the Revenue may reopen the assessment of the shareholders to bring to tax the alleged undisclosed amount.  CIT v. ARL Infratech

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

251/- and Shipra Estate\nLimited and Jaikishan Estate Developers have not deposited Rs.8,21,530/-. Thus,\nPage | 9\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\ntotaling Rs.17,03,974/- was though deducted but not deposited. Due to which\ncredit was not allowed while computing the tax.”\n8.\nThe ld. DR has primarily relied the decision of Bangalore

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

251 12 VAT paid on purchases 2,960,787 13 Sample courier charges 11,064,039 14 Gym charges 355,988 15 Sample expenses for manufacture, suppliers and trade shows. 23,396,979 16 Export forwarding and clearing expenses 3,569,537 17 Misc. Expenses 3,960,471 18 Sales incentive expenses 2,869,355 19 Warehouse running and maintenance

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

251)\n4.\nHon'ble Apex Court in case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal approving\nabove Hon'ble Delhi High Court order reported at 466 ITR 254\n5.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd.\nITA 593/2023 (30.07.2024) approving ITAT impugned order on sec.\n153D.\n6.\nHon'ble Delhi High Court in case

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

251/- and Shipra Estate\nLimited and Jaikishan Estate Developers have not deposited Rs.8,21,530/-. Thus,\nPage | 10\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\ntotaling Rs.17,03,974/- was though deducted but not deposited. Due to which\ncredit was not allowed while computing the tax.”\n8.\nThe ld. DR has primarily relied the decision of Bangalore

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

251, Little Falls Drive, Circle-1(1)(1) Wilmington Delaware, USA, New Delhi. USA 19808 PAN AATCA699SL (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Manish Kanth, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, Advocate and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Advocate Department by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date of 01.08.2023 pronouncement

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground No. 3 along with its sub-grounds 3.1 to 3.4, ground No. 4 and ground No. 5 along with its sub-ground 5.1 r.w ground No. 2 are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

251, Little Falls Drive, Circle-1(1)(1) Wilmington Delaware, USA, New Delhi. USA 19808 PAN AATCA699SL (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Manish Kanth, Advocate Ms. Deepashree Rao, Advocate and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Advocate Department by: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 03.05.2023 Date of 01.08.2023 pronouncement

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

251-254 of the ‘Paper\nBook'. On the said agreement, there are signatures of Sh.\nGhanshyam Gupta and thumb impressions of the farmers and,\nfrom that, it is quite apparent that the farmers are mainly\nagriculturists and uneducated.\nb)\nSh. Ghanshyam Gupta, on the basis of said agreement, dated\n31.07.2010 as entered with the farmers wanted to make 'extra\nmoney

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment u/s 148 qua genuineness of unsecured loan as well as purchases disclosed, considered and accepted during the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10th December 2024 passed by the CIT(A) as well as order dated

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

251 (Delhi) [13-07-2023]) has\ncited many instances of inaccuracy/mistake/error/lapses, etc. in the approval under\nsection 153D of the Act and the details mentioned in the assessment order to hold that\nthere was non-application of mind of the Jt. / Addl. CIT while granting approval under\nsection 153D of the Act. However, here in present case

BEST CITY PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

reassessment had been done then there would not have been any need to mention the right of the assessee to file appeal before the CIT (A). If the view of the AO is to be seen as correct then no appeal would be maintainable before the CIT (A) and the assessee would have to take alternative remedy

KISAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING FZE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INT. TAX 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

1) of section 251 of the Act, and the matter is referred back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment, in accordance with law.” 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. JCT LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

251 /143(3) of the Act for A.Y.1999-2000 and u/s. 144B r.w. 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of Assesseenor any adjournment application was moved. These appeals are disposed of on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. In so far as appeal for the A.Y. 1999-2000 is concerned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. JCT LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

251 /143(3) of the Act for A.Y.1999-2000 and u/s. 144B r.w. 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of Assesseenor any adjournment application was moved. These appeals are disposed of on hearing the Ld. DR. 3. In so far as appeal for the A.Y. 1999-2000 is concerned