MALVIYA NAGAR WATER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON, HARYANA, HARYANA

SA 596/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Malviya Nagar Water Services Private Limited, the appellant, seeking a stay on the demand raised by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The demand was primarily due to an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses and depreciation on intangibles made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant contested these disallowances, arguing that similar claims had been accepted in other years and that additional evidence provided was not considered by the CIT(A). The tribunal, after considering the submissions and the partial payment made by the appellant, decided to grant the stay on the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792527 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANISHTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: BALDEV RAJ
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Depreciation; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S. A. No. 596/Del/2025 (In ITA No.6396/Del/2025) [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Malviya Nagar Water Services Private Limited A-1/132 LGF, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi-110029 Vs Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1 (1) Gurgaon Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Baldev Raj, CA Sh. Manish Upneja, CA Sh. N.K. Chand, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanishtha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2025 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, By virtue of this stay application, the assessee seeks to keep the demand raised for A.Y. 2016-17 in abeyance. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that demand arose because of ad-hoc disallowance of expenses @ 30% made by the Ld. AO for want of Printed from counselvise.com evidence and disallowance of 30% of depreciation on intangibles. With regard to disallowance of expenses, the assessee furnished additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) which stood not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that with regard to disallowance of depreciation, the same had been duly allowed by the Ld. AO himself in earlier and in subsequent years in support of which the Ld. AR drew our attention to the scrutiny assessment orders in pages 19-24 of the paper book. 3. Apart from this, we find the assessee had already deposited 34% of the outstanding demand. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to keep the demand raised for the A.Y. 2016-17 in abeyance for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. 4. The main appeal is listed for hearing on 21.01.2026. The assessee is directed not to take any adjournments on the scheduled date of hearing, failing which the stay hereby granted shall be automatically vacated. 5. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed. Printed from counselvise.com Order pronounced in the open court on 05.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [M. BALAGANESH] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUTNANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.12.2025 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "