ENORMOUS NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Enormous Nivesh Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aabcd1454F Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Fragment Nivesh P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 1, Zamrudpur Community Income Tax, Central Circle Centre, Kailash Colony, 13, Ara Centre, New Delhi – 1100 48 Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaecs5314G Delhi -1100 55 (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase consideration is Rs. 1,95,52,00,000/- which is far excess than rupees fifty thousand and as such this transaction is covered u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act. Section 56(2) (viib) is applicable only in circumstances where the receipt of consideration for issue of shares is involved. In this case, appellant received shares for a consideration

KANTI COMMERCIAL (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

bogus Sundry Debtors of A.Y. 2014-15 is against the settled principles of law and the addition is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to hold that the sales for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 were not genuine where as no sales

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

bogus purchases made by the assessee, same as has been raised by your honour in your jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act is issued as on 04.12.2024. The provisions of Explanation-1 to sub-section (i) to section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred

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

bogus purchases made by the assessee, same as has been raised by your honour in your jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act is issued as on 04.12.2024. The provisions of Explanation-1 to sub-section (i) to section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred

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

bogus purchases made by the assessee, same as has been raised by your honour in your jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act is issued as on 04.12.2024. The provisions of Explanation-1 to sub-section (i) to section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred

MAAKHAN MILK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Maakhan Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, 1066, Baba Nagar, Ward-1(5), Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad. Old Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana – 121 002. Pan: Aaicm2610H

purchase of fixed assets proving its intention to carry on any business in the near future, rejected the valuation report submitted by the assessee using DCF Method in terms of Rule 11UA of the Rules as suffering from defects. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO u/s 56(2)(viib) for the share premium component

MOVEFAST AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 Movefast Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Ward-1(5), Near Neelam Flyover, Faridabad. Sector-20, Faridabad. Pan: Aaicm2607C

purchase of fixed assets proving its intention to carry on any business in the near future, rejected the valuation report submitted by the assessee using DCF Method in terms of Rule 11UA of the Rules as suffering from defects. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO u/s 56(2)(viib) for the share premium component

NCML INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ncml Industries Ltd., Vs Acit, 1818, Naya Bazar, Central Circle-5, New Delhi – 110 006. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacn4248A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2023

56(2)(viib) has no applicability in its case. However, the Id. CIT(A) had arbitrarily held that share premium charged @ Rs. 80/- per share is to be brought to tax. 3. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition of Rs.12,85,050/-, which was made by the A.O. on the ground that the purchase

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus parties who have provided increase to the assessee company have come to light and this is exactly what could have been done had the Ld. AO carried out the required investigation in the case. There can be an argument that such an investigation do not enumerate from the assessment records but I do not agree with such views because

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MAGICAL INFOTECH (P) LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.1189/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), [Now Readystream Infotech (P) Ltd.] New Delhi T-336/B, Gali No.8, Near Ojha Dharamshala, Gautampuri, Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm6581C

section 68 denotes money brought into the accounts by way of 2 M/s Magical Infotech (P.) Ltd. cash/cheques/draft ignoring the fact that ‘sum’ denotes any amount of money including share capital credited in the accounts. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by deleting the addition

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

56(2)(viib) of the Act specifically for the allotment of SEED Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS). 8. In order to verify the share allotment to the directors and investors, the assessee was asked to furnish the PAN details, current address, financial statements, ledger account, ITR, and bank statements of M/s Click Cab Technology LLP to examine the share premium