Income tax appeal against a protective addition was dismissed because the substantive addition of the same amount was pending in a separate appeal (ITA 400/2026), rendering this appeal unnecessary for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~16
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, DELHI
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr.Ashvini Kr. & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs
versus
SANJAY GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 23.07.2026
DINESH MEHTA, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
JULY 23, 2026/ kk
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2026 at 11:45:30
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against a protective addition warrants interference when the substantive addition is being challenged in a separate pending appeal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, DELHI
SANJAY GUPTA
DINESH MEHTA
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
