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

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

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