Skip to main content

DCIT vs Navneet Chaurasia, Rajiv Chaurasia, Mayank Chaurasia, Vibha Arya Chaurasia, Anand Kumar Chaurasia, Vijay Anand Chaurasia

Case No: ITA No. 3766/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19), ITA No. 3767/Del/2025 (AY 2019-20), ITA No. 3764/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21), ITA No. 4396/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18), ITA No. 4397/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19), ITA No. 4398/Del/2025 (AY 2019-20), ITA No. 4399/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21), ITA No. 4430/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18), ITA No. 4431/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19), ITA No. 4432/Del/2025 (AY 2019-20), ITA No. 4433/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21), ITA No. 3768/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19), ITA No. 3769/Del/2025 (AY 2019-20), ITA No. 4437/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21), ITA No. 6311/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18), ITA No. 6312/Del/2025 (AY 2018-19), ITA No. 6313/Del/2025 (AY 2019-20), ITA No. 4427/Del/2025 (AY 2017-18), ITA No. 4428/Del/2025 (AY 2019-20), ITA No. 4429/Del/2025 (AY 2020-21)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi
Bench: Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi
Date: 2/25/2026

Parties Involved

appellantDCIT
respondentNavneet Chaurasia
respondentRajiv Chaurasia
respondentMayank Chaurasia
respondentVibha Arya Chaurasia
respondentAnand Kumar Chaurasia
respondentVijay Anand Chaurasia

Facts Summary

The assessee is an individual and a resident of tax purposes in India. For the previous years relevant to the assessment years 2018-19 to 2020-21, the assessee filed returns of income u/s. 139 of the Act. Subsequently, based on search carried out in Kamla Pasand group of cases, assessment proceedings u/s. 153C/143(3) of the Act were carried out in assessee’s cases for AYrs 2018-19 to 2020-21, which culminated vide separate assessment orders dated 30.3.2023 wherein, certain additions/alterations were made to assessee’s returned income. Against the aforesaid assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years 2018-19 to 2020-21, which were allowed vide separate impugned orders dated 7.2.2025 wherein the said additions were deleted. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the captioned appeals, and the assessee has filed its cross objections.

Decision in favour of

Assessee

Legal Issues

  • 1. Addition u/s. 68 qua sale consideration of diamonds
  • 2. Addition u/s. 69C of the act qua alleged commission expenditure

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

4 precedents cited in this judgement.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning