Browse Tax Judgements
Showing 21–40 of 168 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.
Kuldip Kumar Goel vs. ACIT (1)(1)
The appellant, Kuldip Kumar Goel, an individual, filed an original Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring income of Rs. 30,85,160/-. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 17.03.2015 by accepting the return in…
Ms. Asha Gupta Vs. DCIT
The assessee filed her section 139(1) return on 29.12.2021 stating income of Rs.6,59,580/-. Departmental authorities carried out section 132 search on 14.10.2020 in M/s. Manoj Kumar Singh and associates wherein they came across some incrimi…
RMP Holdings Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer
The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income on 13.09.2012 and the assessment order was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 03.03.2015 at a total income of Rs 2,02,040/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were…
N V Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT
The assessee filed cross-appeals challenging the validity of assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act. The approval was gra…
Income tax Officer vs. Veer Kunwar Singh Shodh Sansthan
The assessee, M/s. Veer Kunwar Singh Shodh Sansthan, is a public charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The trust was created for the relief of the poor and to promote science, art, and culture. The asses…
Shamim Ahmad Vs The I.T.O
The assessee, Shamim Ahmad, is engaged in the trading of livestock. He filed his return of income on 25.07.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 4,99,507/-. The case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2019 and completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s…
Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT/ ACIT
The assessee, Honda Trading Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring total income of Rs. 9,78,20,290/-. The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS. The assessee was primarily engaged in …
Sh. Vipul Gupta Vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida
The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Kanpur’s order dated 31.10.2018 passed in case no. CIT(A)-IV/10003/DCIT-CC-Noida/2016-17, involving proce…
Compass India Support Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional / Joint / Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer
The assessee, Compass India Support Services Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals against the Final Assessment Orders for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19, challenging transfer pricing adjustments made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued …
Krishan Kumar Bansal, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bansal (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Krishan Kumar Bansal) Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-46(4), New Delhi
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, dated 05.07.2024 against the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, …
Shagun Dhawan vs. Addl./JCIT
The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081812663(1), dated 16.10.2025 involving proceedings under sectio…
Sh. Gopesh Mehta v. Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Narnaul
The assessee/appellant is aggrieved against the lower authorities' findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.10,23,000/- as unexplained. The assessee argued that the deposits were redeposits of cash withdrawa…
Ojas Impex Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer-19(1)
The assessee, Ojas Impex Private Limited, received Rs.50 lakhs from M/s Divyadrishti Merchants Pvt. Ltd., which was treated as unexplained income and added back under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer received in…
Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
The instant batch of five cases pertains to the single assessee 'M/s. Precision Agencies Pvt. Ltd.'. The main issue raised is the correctness of the impugned section 68 unexplained cash credits addition and the alleged commission payment th…
Smt. Bharti Sharma vs. Dy. CIT and Sh. Pankaj Sharma vs. Dy. CIT
During a search/seizure operation on M/s. Hans Group of cases on 06.01.2021, a mobile phone belonging to Sh. Vaibhav Jain, a real estate broker, was seized. The departmental authorities allegedly found an image of a receipt relating to the …
Naveen Kurele Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
The appeal filed by Naveen Kurele, the assessee, is against the order dated 09.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Noida, under Sections 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-1…
ITA No.1332/Del/2020
This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37 [in short, the 'CIT(A)'], New Delhi’s order dated 17.01.2020 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-37/10010/2016-17, involving proceedi…
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. NFAC, DELHI
The assessee, Bhupinder Singh, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 30.11.2024, relating to assessment year 2020-21. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the issuance of a notice for hearing. The assesse…
Sachin Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, Delhi
In this case, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 03.03.2020, wherein unexplained cash in foreign currency was found in Shri Sachin's possession at IGI Airport. The assessment was complete…
Hughes Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Delhi
The appellant, Hughes Communications India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessing officer had completed the assessment under section …