Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (1) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the application seeking condonation of delay, the same is allowed. The delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 10/2026 5. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') against the order dated 10.05.2025, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench "A", Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT') in an appeal filed by the appellant-Income Tax Department. Said appeal was heard along with the cross-objections which were filed by the respondent-assessee. 6. The issue involved in the present case is in relation to some transactions, which took place between the respondent and a broker, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent order was unsustainable. 10. Against the above referred order of the CIT(A) dated 08.07.2024, the appellant-Income Tax Department preferred an appeal and the respondent-assessee had preferred cross objections which were heard together by the ITAT. The ITAT in the appeals before it held that the AO had not recorded any finding relating to the particular transactions and has passed an order on the basis of sweeping information which was supplied by the SFIO. 11. In the impugned order dated 30.05.2025, the ITAT has also recorded a finding that the proceedings for reassessment itself were without jurisdiction as no income had escaped assessment and the respondent-assessee had offered the income for tax and paid tax at the highest appl....