RITA SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

section 80C of the Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of learned AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- that are deposited in the bank by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources even though the same was capable of verification. 6. That

MMTC LTD. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1),,

The appeal is allowed, with aforesaid consequences, as directed in ground wise findings

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Mmtc Ltd., Scope Vs. Dcit, Complex, Circle-5(1) Core 1,7, Institutional Area, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessed in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Shri Ram Honda Powers. Equipment Ltd. (2007) 289 ITR 475 (Del) and relying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of IPCA Labortries Ltd. vs DCIT ( 266 ITR 521). The bench had held that provisions of Section 80HHC there is no infirmity

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit

ASHWIN KEDIA,HISSAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, HISSAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwin Kedia, Vs. Ito, House No. 12-S, Model Town, Ward-1, Hissar, Haryana Hissar Pan: Abspk0721B (Appellant) (Respondent)

80C of the IT Act, 1961.” 3. The first ground is against the reopening of the assessment. 4. The brief of the case shows that the assessee filed his return of income on 25.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 254880/- in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The revenue got an information that the assessee has Ashwin

KRISHAN PAL,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 2(2)-GURGAON, GURGAON

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 139/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Krishan Pal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M R Sahu, Ward-2(2), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-22001 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Asqpk6236J Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068016367(1) Dated 27.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

80C claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as not accepted which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s case before us is that given the fact that the faceless regime in question got notified on 29.03.2022, the faceless assessment framed in his case on 28.03.2022 is non-est in the eyes

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SH. RAMESH BATTA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Cross

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle, Ramesh Batta, Dehradun. Vs. 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun.

80C 1,00,000/- 1,85,95,313/- Rounded off as per section 288A 1,85,95,310/- 4. Ld. CIT(A), while partly allowing the assessee’s appeal, confirmed the addition in principle on account of sale of Plot No.91 to Aggarwal Associates Ltd. and deleted the addition in regard to profit of business in regard to Sailok land

MANAK GARG,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manak Garg (Individual), Vs. Ito, Ward 59(1), F-17, West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi Delhi-1100 92 Pan: Aaccn8595N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80C without any evidence. 6. As we go through the grounds raised, we find that there is an averment that there was no proper service of notice under Section 149 of the Act, however, with that regard to same there is no submission or material on record. The claim of assessee is that reassessment

NAND KISHORE GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C.

80C amounting to Rs. 95,383/- and under section SOD of Rs. 15,000/-. The Appellant duly submitted the evidence of depositing premium before CIT(A) with submissions dated 08.10.2018. 3.6 That the Learned Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Otherwise also, interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C are not computed

SANJAY JAIN,BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

80C of the Act without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant. As such, the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- is bad in law and may please be deleted. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.60

CIT -15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LOGIX BUILDESTATE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

80C of the Act without appreciating the submissions made by the appellant. As such, the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- is bad in law and may please be deleted. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law while upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.60

ANIL KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleanil Kumar Vs Ito C/O. Saurabh Gupta & Associates, Ward-1(1) C-12/114, First Floor, D. B. Plaza, Ghaziabad R. D. C, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Respondent) Pan: Aodpk9862P (Appellant)

reassessment order framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3)/147, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making aggregate addition of Rs.3

SH. AYUSH BIYANI ,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Ayush Biyani, Vs. Ito, Kalani & Co Llp, Chartered Ward-1(3), Accountants, 5Th Floor, Gurgaon Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur Pan: Alrpb1245J Assessee By : Shri P. C. Parwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

reassessment proceedings were framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 12.03.2024. The return of income of ₹13,18,200/- was filed by the assessee. In the said return, the assessee inadvertently omitted the claim of deduction u/s 80C of the Act in the sum of ₹1,50,000/-. Accordingly, the assessee by way of additional ground before

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section (2) to Section 14A of the Act and sub Rule (1) to Rule 8D of the Rules. 14. The view and legal ratio expressed above is not being elucidated for the first time. The Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272/203 Taxman 364/15 taxmann.com 390 has observed:- 'Scope of sub-sections

RAJESH KUMAR VERMA,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD -2, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 beyond four year is not valid in law:- On the information received from AST System on borrowed (i) satisfaction without recording reasons that income escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosure fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The competent authority had not applied his mind before