OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 of the Act. Thus, both grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal are dismissed. 8. Qua the ground No. 4, the assessee has challenged that in absence of books of accounts addition of Rs.15,22,221/- and addition of Rs.89,75,305/- could not have been made under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_I/2024- 25/1065485485(1) on 07/06/2024 requiring the assessee M/s Shrish Enterprises Private Limited (hereinafter may be referred to as "the Firm") to provide the documents and information as per the annexure of the said notice, we would like to submit as under: 1. Please prove the genuineness

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 144 were attracted, and the Assessing Officer had to pass assessment order to the best of his judgment, without relying upon the alleged invalid return of income. Without Prejudice to the above-mentioned grounds: 3. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in affirming the Impugned assessment order wherein

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 144 were attracted, and the Assessing Officer had to pass assessment order to the best of his judgment, without relying upon the alleged invalid return of income. Without Prejudice to the above-mentioned grounds: 3. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in affirming the Impugned assessment order wherein

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act. 4 3.1 In this regard, it is submitted that appellant has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 32,34,000/- during demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 which is tabulated hereunder: Sr. Bank Name Account Number (Pages Date Total Amount of No. of paper book) deposit (pages of Paper Book) i) Oriental bank

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

68 of the IT Act 1961). As the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the parties, who gave the unsecured loan and paid cash to the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge primary onus as incomplete address was provided without other details. In view of this, Ld. CIT (A) erred in fact

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the Ld. AR stated that the fact that the notice was served through registered post upon the shareholders proved their existence……..” 17. The assessee had sufficiently explained the purpose of raising funds, business model of the assessee company etc. before the ld. CIT(A) who after accepting the explanation of the assessee

RAVINDER BAWEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 2. That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to present his case and without giving any final notice, assessment has been made by the assessing officer and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 3. That

RAVINDER BAWEJA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 2. That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to present his case and without giving any final notice, assessment has been made by the assessing officer and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 3. That

RAVINDER BAWEJA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NES DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 2. That no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to present his case and without giving any final notice, assessment has been made by the assessing officer and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 3. That

RAMESH CHAND INVESTMENT & LEASING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kant

144 is bad in law; 2. The appellant denies his liability to tax as upheld by the ld. CIT (Appeals) and determined and computed by the learned Assessing Officer and the manner in which it has been so determined or computed; 3. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs.4

ACIT,CIRCLE-10(1) , NEW DELHI vs. INDEX SECURITIES & RESEARCH PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

68", "Section 36(1)(vii)", "Section 143(3)", "Section 144", "Section 153C", "Section 131"], "issues

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MOHD RIZWAN, DELHI

In the result, addition of Rs

sections": [ "144", "80C", "80D", "80TTA", "68", "131", "132", "115BE" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of purchases made by the AO was justified

GANGA COTTON & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 11(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ganga Cotton & Allied Vs. Ito Ward-11(3) Industries Ltd., New Delhi 7/2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan Aaacg3976E (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 in appeal v) 2015-16 24.9.2015 4,17,170 0 0 ---- ----- 9. Learned representative for appellant/assessee submitted that as per section 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),DELHI, DELHI vs. EBERSPAECHER SUETRAK BUS CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The Appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

68", "Section 143(2)", "Section 142(1)", "Section 144", "Section 234B", "Section 271(1)(c)"], "issues