VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 154 redundant. Rectification u/s 154 can be done suo mota either by Assessing Officer himself or by the assessee on application. In the instant case, all the documents and details related to the impugned transaction were on record. We need to understand if such a mistake can lead to holding the order erroneous for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 154 redundant. Rectification u/s 154 can be done suo mota either by Assessing Officer himself or by the assessee on application. In the instant case, all the documents and details related to the impugned transaction were on record. We need to understand if such a mistake can lead to holding the order erroneous for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 115BBE of the Act. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the detailed submissions and explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

bogus capital gain obtained from the transactions of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd., a Mumbai based company. It is noticed that the purchase transaction has been done off market in physical form by paying cash. The assessee has purchased the share M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. in physical form and thereafter, the same have been converted

22-08-2014

purchase transactions recorded in the books were mere accommodation entries. 2. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27th November, 2002, held that the assessee had earned commission @ 1.5% from the said transactions on the turnover of Rs.1,04,76,94,004/-. Undisclosed income of Rs.1.57 crores as commission earned was assessed. In the first appeal, Commissioner of Income

HAZARI LAL KESARI CHAND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

purchase and sale were bogus, made addition under section 69A, 32 Hazari Lal Kesari Chand, ND. Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition without going into evidence on record. Before I sign off, it is extremely important to look at the surrounding circumstances of the case. This observation is without prejudice to my adjudication in the foregoing paras

K.D.P. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Kdp Infrastructure Vs. Dcit, Cc Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited C-78, Sector 63, Noida Cgo Complex-I, Kamala Uttar Pradesh – 201301 Nehru Nagar, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs1691J Appellant .. Respondent

154 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ACIT/DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Heard and perused the records the Ld. Counsel has primarily question the assumption of jurisdiction alleging that the addition made u/s 69 of the Act is not sustainable for the reason that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUBHASH TYAGI PROP. M/S KRISHANA CONSTRUCTION, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

purchases. The assessee did not provide any particulars of parties relatable to such bogus entries. As per the penalty order, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 52 crore vide statement recorded in the course of search under Section 132(4) of the Act. Subsequently, in response to notice under Section 153A dated 20.07.2018, the assessee filed his return

SHRI SUBHASH TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

purchases. The assessee did not provide any particulars of parties relatable to such bogus entries. As per the penalty order, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 52 crore vide statement recorded in the course of search under Section 132(4) of the Act. Subsequently, in response to notice under Section 153A dated 20.07.2018, the assessee filed his return

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus transaction, and\nhence such cash receipts are liable to be treated as 'unexplained cash\nreceipts'.\n\n16. Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO Ve Shamim M Bherwani\n(2016) (69 Τaxmann.com 65)\n\nWhere Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held that where assessee claimed Income\nearned from sale of shares as exempt under section

SUPER CONNECTIONS INDIA (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, ground no. 7 to10 of the assessee’s appeal of the assessee are allowed and the aggregate addition of Rs

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

section 153D and in any case approval if any is 3 ITA Nos.7665 to 7667 /Del./2019 mechanical without application of mind and is no approval in the eyes of law. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action

SUPER CONNECTIONS INDIA (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, ground no. 7 to10 of the assessee’s appeal of the assessee are allowed and the aggregate addition of Rs

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

section 153D and in any case approval if any is 3 ITA Nos.7665 to 7667 /Del./2019 mechanical without application of mind and is no approval in the eyes of law. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action