THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

section 272A(1 )(d)/ 271(1 )(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 12. The writ petition thereafter came to be instituted on 27 March 2023. On the first date of consideration and more particularly on 28 March 2023, an interim order was passed to the effect that while the AO would have liberty to continue the reassessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

D G M E N T RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. The instant appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, impugns order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”], whereby, the ITAT ruled in favour of the respondent/Assessee and dismissed the appeal preferred against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CITA”]. The appeal has been

REVELATION UNIQUE RETAIL AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 3 13.12.2022. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessed, made deposits of Rs.17,70,12,272/-. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made additions of Rs.17,70,12,272/- and Rs.5,92,32,502/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA SHARMA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 3 13.12.2022. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessed, made deposits of Rs.17,70,12,272/-. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made additions of Rs.17,70,12,272/- and Rs.5,92,32,502/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal

ANSHUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Ansul Bansal, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Tax, Circle-3, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Auqpb8298M (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 03.12.2022. The copy of the satisfaction note was provided to the assessee on 13.01.2023. As per the submissions made by the assessee, during the year under consideration the assessee has derived income from salary and other sources. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessee and M/s Revelation Unique Retail

RAJESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. SANGHPRIYA SINGH, DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. It was pointed out that both the assessees were subjected to assessment proceedings u/s 153 C of the act on account of search action undertaken u/s 132 of the Act on one Shri Manoj Kumar Singh and related entities. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that simultaneously

RAMESH GANDHI,NEW DELHI vs. SANGHPRIYA SINGH, DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22 Ramesh Gandhi, Vs Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aetpg9908E Assessment Year: 2021-22 Rajesh Gandhi, Dcit, 67-68, Sector-25, New Delhi. Pocket-2, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Azfpg7938P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Bindal, Ca Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate & Ms Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 Order Per Annapurna Gupta, Am:

section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. It was pointed out that both the assessees were subjected to assessment proceedings u/s 153 C of the act on account of search action undertaken u/s 132 of the Act on one Shri Manoj Kumar Singh and related entities. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that simultaneously

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

d) reasons recorded nowhere communicates the description of how income escapement of Rs 2.93 crores is deduced and what are the components of the same like name of share subscriber entity, amount of share subscribed, date of share subscription , mode of payment and instrument no etc for want of which reasons have become non communicative; e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

d) reasons recorded nowhere communicates the description of how income escapement of Rs 2.93 crores is deduced and what are the components of the same like name of share subscriber entity, amount of share subscribed, date of share subscription , mode of payment and instrument no etc for want of which reasons have become non communicative; e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses

A K ENTERPRISES ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(5), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2019-20

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 02-02-2024 and by the Ld. CIT(A) on dated 26-08-2025, both are against the principles of law and natural justice. 7. That the interest charged u/s 234ABC and initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A 271AAC(1). 271B & 272A(1)(d) & Fee u/s 234 F are further illegal

M/S. BONY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Before Suchitra Kamble

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, A.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27th March, 2014 passed by the CIT(A), Faridabad relating to assessment year 2006-07. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the JCIT(TDS) on a perusal of information available on system found that the assessee had filed

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

d) 50 shares with a paid-up value of Rs. 5,000 in the name of Sh. Oscar Fernandes. A bank account was opened by the Appellant with Citibank on 14.02.2011 and the cheque dated 24.12.2010 issued by Dotex for Rs. 1 crore was deposited in the bank account of the Appellant on the said

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first