SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 5 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in completing the assessment at income Rs. 65,43,244/- instead of income of Rs.5,90,940/- as returned by appellant. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

43B, interest disallowance on OD, director’s remuneration and purchases etc., hardly need to be discussed and decided at length in light of the assessee’s foregoing book rejection on our part in preceding paras and going by Prasant Oil Mill vs Income-tax Officer [2016] 72 taxmann.com 136 (Gujarat) and Indwell Construction

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

43B, interest disallowance on OD, director’s remuneration and purchases etc., hardly need to be discussed and decided at length in light of the assessee’s foregoing book rejection on our part in preceding paras and going by Prasant Oil Mill vs Income-tax Officer [2016] 72 taxmann.com 136 (Gujarat) and Indwell Construction

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and for which no proof of payment has been furnished? 25. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel for the Assessee as well as Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Rohit Madan, learned Standing counsel for the Revenue respectively. Unexplained cash credit under Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), ld. AR of the assessee submitted that these grounds are not pressed in view of relief allowed by the AO vide order dated 11.07.2017 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 5. With regard to Ground Nos.4

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), ld. AR of the assessee submitted that these grounds are not pressed in view of relief allowed by the AO vide order dated 11.07.2017 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 5. With regard to Ground Nos.4

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’),\nld. AR of the assessee submitted that these grounds are not pressed in view of relief\nallowed by the AO vide order dated 11.07.2017 passed u/s 154 r.w.s.143(3) of the\nAct. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.\n5. With regard to Ground Nos.4 to 4.3 regarding

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. DHANESHWARI WOOD PRODUCTS LTD, ASSAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

43B and other relevant sections, for disallowing such amounts remaining unpaid. In fact, from the computation of income for each year, the appellant has already adjusted its income by making relevant disallowances.  During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) obtained the details of trade creditors outstanding for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 for a sample check regarding

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. DHANESHWARI WOOD PRODUCTS LTD, ASSAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

43B and other relevant sections, for disallowing such amounts remaining unpaid. In fact, from the computation of income for each year, the appellant has already adjusted its income by making relevant disallowances.  During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) obtained the details of trade creditors outstanding for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 for a sample check regarding

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Purchases Total Closing complete as 01.04.2016 during FY2016- payments balance as address of the (Rs.) 17 (Rs) during on creditor FY2016- 31.03.2017 17 (Rs) (Rs 1. Furnish evidence of additions made in the fixed assets during the FY2016-17 in order. to justify your claim of depreciation. 1. You have raised unsecured loans during the year as per point

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

purchase Para 7 3,40,55,423/- Addition u/s 41(1) Para 8 40,00,000/- Addition disallowance of bogus expenses Para 9 1,03,80,925/- Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) Para 10 8,56,214/- Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) Para 11 6,46,805/- Addition u/s 43B Para 12 1,32,19,450/- Addition

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

purchase Para 7 3,40,55,423/- Addition u/s 41(1) Para 8 40,00,000/- Addition disallowance of bogus expenses Para 9 1,03,80,925/- Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) Para 10 8,56,214/- Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) Para 11 6,46,805/- Addition u/s 43B Para 12 1,32,19,450/- Addition