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

DCIT, NAJIBABAD vs. DR. SIRISH KUMAR, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Sirish Kumar, Circle – Najibabad, Prop. Shree Hospital, Kiratpur Najibabad Road, Bijnor. Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.65/Del/2016 [In Ita No.4578/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sirish Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Prop. Shree Hospital, Circle – Najibabad, Kiratpur Road, Bijnor. Najibabad Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ca

68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the learned AO has not brought on record any material evidence to suggest that the explanation as furnished was bogus. C.O. No.65/Del/2016 12.1 The Ld. DR relying on the finding of the learned Assessing Officer submitted that the creditworthiness of Sh. Rajendra Kumar was not substantiated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUMIT MITTAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Department in ITA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and also made addition on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs.2,43,07,000/-. Accordingly assessment order came to be passed on 25.03.2013 by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.2,44,13,240/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,240/-. As against the assessment order dated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUMIT MITTAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Department in ITA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and also made addition on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs.2,43,07,000/-. Accordingly assessment order came to be passed on 25.03.2013 by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.2,44,13,240/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,240/-. As against the assessment order dated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MADHUR MITTAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Department in ITA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and also made addition on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs.2,43,07,000/-. Accordingly assessment order came to be passed on 25.03.2013 by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.2,44,13,240/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,240/-. As against the assessment order dated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MADHUR MITTAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Department in ITA

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and also made addition on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of Rs.2,43,07,000/-. Accordingly assessment order came to be passed on 25.03.2013 by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.2,44,13,240/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,240/-. As against the assessment order dated

VIKAS SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Vimal Kumarvikas Sharma Acit Vs. Prop. M/S. Pandit Homes, Circle – 55(1), M/S. Pandit Cements & New Delhi M/S. Shri Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers, 15/103, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad – 201 012 Pan No. Avjps 8784 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Tarun Chanana, Advocate Revenue By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2024

68 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 29,45,400/- on account of loan taken from Sri. Bankey Bihari Builders & Developers. Vikas Sharma vs. ACIT 3 10. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in upholding/confirming the finding of the AO of rejecting the book of the Appellant under Section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

80C and 80D) 6. TOTLA INCOME 2,16,95,055 (B.1) In the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) has included a discussion on Best Judgment Assessment U/s 144 of I.T. Act. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: The assessee failed to produce books of account along with the original bills and vouchers despite getting repeated opportunities

NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

80C to 80GGC and Part C - Deductions in respect of certain incomes - comprising of Section 80H to Section 80TT. 10. Out of this broad scheme of the Act, since the cited cases before us mostly pertain to Part C of Chapter VI-A which deals with the deductions to be made in computing Total Income under Section

SH. JITENDER GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

80C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for payment of life insurance premium.” 1.1. Earlier this appeal of assessee were dismissed for default. However, by allowing M.A. of the assessee, appeal was restored. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.1,91,940/-. The source of income attributed to retails

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

80C to 80U has to be first included in the total income of the assessee. It, therefore, becomes part of the income, which is subjected to tax. Thereafter, deduction is to be allowed in accordance with 16 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017 and 2341 & 2342/Del/2017 and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the respective provisions. This

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

80C to 80U has to be first included in the total income of the assessee. It, therefore, becomes part of the income, which is subjected to tax. Thereafter, deduction is to be allowed in accordance with 16 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017 and 2341 & 2342/Del/2017 and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the respective provisions. This

M/S. KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

80C to 80U has to be first included in the total income of the assessee. It, therefore, becomes part of the income, which is subjected to tax. Thereafter, deduction is to be allowed in accordance with 16 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017 and 2341 & 2342/Del/2017 and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the respective provisions. This

M/S. KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

80C to 80U has to be first included in the total income of the assessee. It, therefore, becomes part of the income, which is subjected to tax. Thereafter, deduction is to be allowed in accordance with 16 | P a g e ITA Nos.2972 & 2973/Del/2017 and 2341 & 2342/Del/2017 and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the respective provisions. This

NITIN BAJAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 50(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sanjay Garg

68,553/- being 20% of the expenses on adhoc basis. Similarly, the A.O. made addition of Rs.5,86,742/- being 20% of the sundry creditors on estimate basis in absence of any details. Since the assessee did not file any evidence to support its claim regarding the deduction under section 80C

ITO, WARD- 41(1), NEW DELHI vs. AASTHA GOEL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

80C 2 and Rs.2,655/- u/s 80TTA of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee computed her taxable income at Rs.4,50,000/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the purchase deed of the property located at E-886, Narela Industrial Complex DSIIDC Narela, Delhi that the assessee had jointly purchased 50% undivided share

PANKAJ GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80C and D amounting Rs.115000/-.” 2. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.9,24,810/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. As per the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made following additions. (i) unsecured loans u/s. 68 Rs. 40 lacs, (ii) denial of deduction u/s.80C and 8D of Rs.15000 (iii) disallowance

GURMEET KAUR KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 45(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, Vs. Acit, Gb-8, Shivaji Vihar, Circle 45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi Pan No. Afhpk8679R (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act; b. Disallowance of Rs. 1,26,136/- on account of Short and excess expense debited in P&L account; c. Disallowance of INR 1,00,000/- of deduction claimed under section 80C