Browse Tax Judgements
Showing 1–20 of 66 judgements · Browse by section & bench
Free to read — no signup required. Every judgement includes the facts, legal issues, outcome and related cases. Create a free account for AI chat, drafting and workspaces.
BHARAT GUPTA vs. ITO, WARD-72(4)
The assessee filed his return of income on 29.3.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 2,17,100/-. AO noted that the information was received from ADIT(Inv), Unit-1(3), Mumbai vide office letter No. ADIT(Inv.)/Unit-1(3)/Diss./DMC EDU/2017-18/5 dat…
Asok Kumar S/o sher Singh vs. ITO
The assessee, Asok Kumar S/o sher Singh, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 02.06.2025 for A.Y. 2011-12, challenging the addition of Rs.4,80,8000/- towards unexplained income …
Trans Globe NKS Holdings Limited v. Income Tax Officer
The assessee company filed its return of income on 23.09.2011 declaring loss at Rs. 47,507/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 28.01.2014 accepting the return loss. The case was re-opened u/s 148 of the…
Vedant Bhatnagar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), New Delhi-110002
The assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2025-26/1083074346(1) dated 27.11.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The legal issue of…
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -04, Room No. 332, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi v. Smt. Sudesh Gahlot
The present appeal and Cross Objection are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee respectively challenging the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), New Delhi dated 28/06/2025 pertaining to Assessment Ye…
TK Elevator Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 25(1)
The appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 challenging the Final Assessment Orders passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -25(1), New Delhi dated 18/05/2015. The assessee challe…
Rakesh Sharma vs Income Tax Officer
The assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10882895340(1) dated 21.11.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first and foremost is…
Manoj Saboo vs ITO
The AO had received information from the DDIT (Inv) Unit-4, Investigation Wing that certain credits were made in the Bank account of Shri Amit Gupta. On the basis of this information, the assessment was re-opened. The AO issued notices whic…
Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(3), New Delhi
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the 'CIT(A)/NFAC'], Delhi's DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082436686(1), dated …
Dhansamridhi Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT
The appeal is filed by Dhansamridhi Finance Pvt. Ltd. against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 20.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal including the erroneous addition of Rs. 22,37,61,000/- un…
Aromatrix Flora (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-1(1)
The assessee company, Aromatrix Flora (P) Ltd., filed its return of income declaring a total income of INR 23,63,416/- which was later revised to INR 2,58,87,480/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and the assessment was complete…
ITA No.2705/Del/2015
The assessee, Skyline Engg. Contracts (India) P. Ltd., is a private limited company engaged in construction business. The return of income for the year under appeal (AY 2011-12) was filed on 30th September, 2011 declaring a total income of …
STAR LIFESTYLES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 24(1)
The Assessee, STAR LIFESTYLES PVT. LTD., has filed an appeal against the Order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 28.12.2023, relating to assessment year 2011-12. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the issuance of a notice for hearin…
Harjeet Singh Sahni vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad
The basic facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 03.11.2016 at the premises of the assessee, Shri Harjeet Singh Sahni. The search operation was conducted at the res…
HITCHKI CREATION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT
A search and seizure operation under section 132 was conducted on 27.11.2014 in the case of Maconns, Meenu and Yadav Singh Group, wherein certain incriminating documents were found and seized relating to the assessee. Subsequently, a notice…
CRS Infra Projects Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Delhi
This appeal has been filed by CRS Infra Projects Limited against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18/09/2024 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Offic…
JAN MOHAMMAD, DATAWALI MAWANA, MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH-25004 (PAN: FBRPM4115B) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), MEERUT, UP
The assessee, JAN MOHAMMAD, has filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 30.11.2023, relating to assessment year 2011-12. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the issuance of a notice for hearing. The Tribun…
Anil Rathee vs. Income Tax Officer
The instant appeal filed by the assessee, Anil Rathee, is directed against the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee subm…
ITA No. 1358/Del/2024 & CO No. 41/Del/2024
The case involves the reopening of an assessment under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Raj Kumar Kedia HUF, filed a cross-objection challenging the validity of the reopening. The Assessing Officer had previou…
Surender Singh vs ITO
This appeal is filed by Surender Singh against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 26.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee raised several grounds, but only ground no.4 was pressed at the hearing. The case wa…