RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. MGV JAIN JWELLERS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mgv Jain Jewellers Circle-16(1), Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Shop New Delhi No.1,2780/20, Karol Bagh, Bedonpura, New Delhi-110005. Pan-Aagcm3999K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 30.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

cash realized and cannot be treated as unexplained deposit' and the sales amount have been credited in the books of accounts and with no doubt on the purchases, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not in order. 32. Para 4.11 Purchases from 'M/s Ram Lal Kimat Rai' had been verified. His statement recorded at the back

SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Circle-2(1)(1), K-10/72, Garima Ghaziabad Garden Pasonda, Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Sushil Kumar Sharma, Vs. Acit, K-10/72, Garima Circle-2(1)(1), Garden Pasonda, Ghaziabad Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Assessee By : Shri Vicky Kapoor, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2024

TDS. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings in response to first notice issued by the ld AO including explanation for huge cash deposit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD vs. SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Circle-2(1)(1), K-10/72, Garima Ghaziabad Garden Pasonda, Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Sushil Kumar Sharma, Vs. Acit, K-10/72, Garima Circle-2(1)(1), Garden Pasonda, Ghaziabad Hapur, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Ccxps6114G Assessee By : Shri Vicky Kapoor, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/05/2024

TDS. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings in response to first notice issued by the ld AO including explanation for huge cash deposit

SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:A.Y. 2007-08 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 10/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, Ward-33(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaups 9406 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Jain Cit(Dr).

cash deposit in the bank account as was specifically directed by ITAT to be established. He submitted that the observations of ld. Commissioner as regards wholeseller was not material for deciding whether AO’s order was erroneous or not. He submitted that submission of details by assessee, without due application of mind on the same, could not be accepted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

cash withdrawal from\nthe bank account of his proprietorship concern, for the purpose of\nmaking payment to the labour, however post demonetization bank\naccounts of the laborers under ASV Enterprises were opened and\nnow salary payments were directly to these bank account of\nlaborers from his current account. (question no. 19 of page 825 of\npaperbook)\n\nvi.\nThus, upon

RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PVT. LTD.,(EARLIERKNOWN AS RITIKA PVT.LTD.,)R,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

cash withdrawal from\nthe bank account of his proprietorship concern, for the purpose of\nmaking payment to the labour, however post demonetization bank\naccounts of the laborers under ASV Enterprises were opened and\nnow salary payments were directly to these bank account of\nlaborers from his current account. (question no. 19 of page 825 of\npaperbook)\n\nvi.\nThus, upon

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, NEW DELHI vs. RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI

cash withdrawal from\nthe bank account of his proprietorship concern, for the purpose of\nmaking payment to the labour, however post demonetization bank\naccounts of the labourers under ASV Enterprises were opened and\nnow salary payments were directly to these bank account of\nlaborers from his current account. (question no. 19 of page 825 of\npaperbook)\n\nvi. Thus, upon

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. SANTOSH TRUST, NEW DELHI

cash funds undeposited in the bank\naccounts.\nh.\nThe appellant had been pursuing the legal remedies against the\ndemand outstanding and in that respect the appellant had move\npetition for settlement of dispute u/s 245C of IT Act before the\nIncome Tax Settlement Commission. The Commission vide order\nus 245D(4) dt: 27.11.2015 settled the pending disputes. The final\ndemand

SH. JAI PRAKASH GARG,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyams. Astha Chandraita No. 2118/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Jai Parkash Garg, Vs Pr. Cit, H.No. 889, Sector-13, Urban Karnal Estate, Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abzpg8229K Assessee By : Sh. Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2022

cash deposit. Despite noting the above and noting that assessee replied to the same, the ld. PCIT contradicted himself by the observation that no enquiry has been done on this issue and the AO simply accepted the version of the assessee. The above line mentions that firstly there is no enquiry and in the same breath it states that

RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED),TILAK MARG vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI, ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE

cash withdrawal from\nthe bank account of his proprietorship concern, for the purpose of\nmaking payment to the labour, however post demonetization bank\naccounts of the laborers under ASV Enterprises were opened and\nnow salary payments were directly to these bank account of\nlaborers from his current account. (question no. 19 of page 825 of\npaperbook)\n\nvi.\nThus, upon

DY. CIT, CC-4, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN vs. KALAMKARI DESIGNS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

cash withdrawal from\nthe bank account of his proprietorship concern, for the purpose of\nmaking payment to the labour, however post demonetization bank\naccounts of the laborers under ASV Enterprises were opened and\nnow salary payments were directly to these bank account of\nlaborers from his current account. (question no. 19 of page 825 of\npaperbook)\n\nvi.\nThus, upon

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA, DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 7 of the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

deposit these cash/ cheque in different bank accounts operated by me as stated above in answer to Q.No.4 and in turn I used to issue cheques in favour of M/s VISCO (M/s Valley Iron & Steel Co Ltd) and M/s Gee. Ispat Pvt Ltd. Q. 6 What was your interest in doing the aforesaid activity and who is the beneficiary

SHARWAN KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessees are

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

cash deposited by the assessee aggregating to Rs. 4.5 crores in PNIGKY Scheme, 2016 and also agreed to pay the balance amount of tax Rs. 71,55,000/-after adjusting the advance tax paid of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- and Rs. 51,00,000/- in challan No.280 on 16.11.2016 and 22.11.2016 under PMGKY Scheme. Accordingly the balance amount