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

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD., DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

va) of the Act. 9. While making addition under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of proportionate interest of Rs.18,04,614/-, the details of advances given by the assessee to various persons were obtained from the records submitted by the assessee including the accounts of these persons as appearing at paragraphs 5, 5.1 & 5.2 of the order passed

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD., DELHI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

va) of the Act. 9. While making addition under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of proportionate interest of Rs.18,04,614/-, the details of advances given by the assessee to various persons were obtained from the records submitted by the assessee including the accounts of these persons as appearing at paragraphs 5, 5.1 & 5.2 of the order passed

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ICOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

va) of the Act. 9. While making addition under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of proportionate interest of Rs.18,04,614/-, the details of advances given by the assessee to various persons were obtained from the records submitted by the assessee including the accounts of these persons as appearing at paragraphs 5, 5.1 & 5.2 of the order passed

M/S B.L. FOUNDRY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

va) of the Act. 9. While making addition under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of proportionate interest of Rs.18,04,614/-, the details of advances given by the assessee to various persons were obtained from the records submitted by the assessee including the accounts of these persons as appearing at paragraphs 5, 5.1 & 5.2 of the order passed

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

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

36(1) (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

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

36(1)(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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

section 148A. The\n\nrelevant observations of the hon'ble high court as contained in para 29\nto 32 of the order reads as under:\n\n29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3\nas well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched,\nwe find no justification to differ

ALPHA PACIFIC ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

reassessment under Section 263 of the Act. 5. On the factsand circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts andin law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting option of the A.O. by that of the Pr. CIT. 3 Alpha Pacific Engineers

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

1)(vi) and (vii) of the IT Act and as per Article 12(4) of the DTAA\nalso, chargeable to tax u/s 115A(1)(b)(A) and 115A(1)(b)(B) of the\nIncome Tax Act. The assessee was required to deduct Tax at source on\nPage | 47\nITA Nos.4635, 5000, 2060, 4999, 4648, 3988,\n2061, 1455, 2062 & 1456/Del/2024