Para 71-75 ACIT v. Kences

Prem Bhutani, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…assessee. The Reliance for the proposition that such jottings by themselves would not constitute income which has been declared in the judicial decisions CIT vs. S M Agarwal 293 ITR 43 (Delhi), CIT vs, Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Delhi), CIT vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Delhi). The relevant observations made in the case of CIT Vs. S M Agarwal 293 ITR 43 (Delhi) is as under: 8 ITA. 429/Del/2020 Prem Bhutani vs. DCIT “11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt.Sarla Aggarwal, daughter of the assessed while arriving at the conclusion, that the entries belong to t…

DCIT, CC Gzbd, Ghaziabad vs. Yugank Goyal, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…f B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the…

DCIT CC, Gzbd vs. Bankey Behari Goyal, Agra

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…f B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the…

Maanya Goyal, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Gzbd

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…f B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the…

Bankey Behari Goyal, Agra (U.P) vs. DCIT, Central Circle Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…f B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the…

Yugank Goyal, Agra vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…f B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the…

Ani Bala Goyal, Agra vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaizabad

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…f B. B. Goel also does not support the case of Revenue as he has categorically stated that the figures written are merely projections about future profit. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) to buttress the contention that the burden was on the Revenue to prove that the explanation of Shri B. B. Goel was not correct and that the notings/jottings were in fact related to the investments of the undisclosed amount. Further, Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that any action was taken by Revenue in the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

…& Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

…& Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

…& Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and t…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

…, if any, even otherwise and in the absence of corroborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

…, if any, even otherwise and in the absence of corroborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

…, if any, even otherwise and in the absence of corroborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

…, if any, even otherwise and in the absence of corroborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned…