PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS, cash, cheque, etc. On the basis of the said papers, the assessing officer held that amount shown under column ‘cash’ was expenditure incurred outside the books of accounts. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS, cash, cheque, etc. On the basis of the said papers, the assessing officer held that amount shown under column ‘cash’ was expenditure incurred outside the books of accounts. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

MADHYAM BUILDTECH P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

TDS & service tax was deducted from payment of commission made, there was no doubt on source of expenditure, hence section 69C

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on ground no

69C instead of section 69. The Assessee only challenge the wrong and illegal addition U/s 69 of I. Tax Act as unexplained and undisclosed Investment. I.T.A.No.6578/Del/2018 2. That a legal question of law arise whether the action of CIT(A) justified for conversion of addition as made by AO under any wrong section which is challenge by the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS has been deducted on almost all the contract charges. Almost all the contract charges have been paid through proper banking channel. Reliance in this regard is placed upon decision of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the decision of PCIT-07, Delhi Versus M/S. Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. ITA 135/2023 it has held that creditor not responding to the notice

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS has been deducted on almost all the contract charges. Almost all the contract charges have been paid through proper banking channel. Reliance in this regard is placed upon decision of Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the decision of PCIT-07, Delhi Versus M/S. Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. ITA 135/2023 it has held that creditor not responding to the notice

KASHISH EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No.2279/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Kashish Exports Pvt. Ltd., Acit C/O. Sanjiv Suri, बनाम Circle : 5 (1), A–203, Ananda Eldeco, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 48, Noida [U.P.] Pan : Aacck3350J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

TDS thereon and further the Appellant had repaid the said loan during the year ended March 31, 2006. The aforesaid squared up loan transaction had been reflected by the Appellant in its Tax Audit Report in Annexure 9 , titled " Particulars of each loan or deposit in an amount exceeding the limit specified in section 269SS taken or accepted during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. ISRANI BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 69C of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has failed not only to deduct tax at source (‘TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. AGARWAL EARTH MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vs. Agarwal Earth Movers B-Block, New Cgo Complex, Private Limited, Nh-Iv, Nit Fartidabad 1316, Sector-29, Faridabad Haryana Haryana-121001 [Pan: Aadca7184K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 was justified.” (e) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat HC) “Suspicion cannot replace evidence; where identity and genuineness are established and repayments are made, no addition is warranted.” 5.4.6. The addition of Rs.4,50,000/- relating to commission payment had been made u/s 69C which is related to addition of Rs.1

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

TDS as per section 194I of the Act. However, the deal could be materialized and were got cancelled by the buyer M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and part of the advances were repaid also. All these agreements and cancelled agreement were found and seized during the course of search and are available in the paper book filed by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

TDS as per section 194I of the Act. However, the deal could be materialized and were got cancelled by the buyer M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and part of the advances were repaid also. All these agreements and cancelled agreement were found and seized during the course of search and are available in the paper book filed by the assessee

MANISH PAHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed with consequences to follow as

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Manish Pahwa, Vs Ito, J-554, Rajouri Garden, Ward-45(2), New Delhi– 110 027. Delhi. Pan: Aaapp0676M

TDS was deducted on the payment. Based on these factors, the AO disallowed the Rs.7.50 lakh and added it under Section 69C

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

TDS was actually deposited in government accounts at any point of time over the entire period from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12, neither has Vatika debited any interest on the sum of Rs. 15 crores in its books during this period. This is also clear indicator of the commercial understanding between parties. Even in the extension agreement dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

TDS was actually deposited in government accounts at any point of time over the entire period from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12, neither has Vatika debited any interest on the sum of Rs. 15 crores in its books during this period. This is also clear indicator of the commercial understanding between parties. Even in the extension agreement dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

TDS was actually deposited in government accounts at any point of time over the entire period from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12, neither has Vatika debited any interest on the sum of Rs. 15 crores in its books during this period. This is also clear indicator of the commercial understanding between parties. Even in the extension agreement dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

TDS was actually deposited in government accounts at any point of time over the entire period from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12, neither has Vatika debited any interest on the sum of Rs. 15 crores in its books during this period. This is also clear indicator of the commercial understanding between parties. Even in the extension agreement dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

TDS was actually deposited in government accounts at any point of time over the entire period from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12, neither has Vatika debited any interest on the sum of Rs. 15 crores in its books during this period. This is also clear indicator of the commercial understanding between parties. Even in the extension agreement dated