FRAGMENT 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

bogus nature. It was further held that the order passed by the Tribunal is superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to human probabilities , for in the normal course of conduct, no one will make investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about

VERSATILE POLYTECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

bogus nature. It was further held that the order passed by the Tribunal is superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to human probabilities , for in the normal course of conduct, no one will make investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNICO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Circle-25(1), 103, Pratap Bhawan, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Near Indian Express Building, New Delhi. Pan: Aaact4445P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Mrs Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 31St March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Sheet Metal Components & Tools & Dies. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2011 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Said Return Was Revised On 14Th September, 2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.3,61,68,075/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao, On Perusal Of The Balance Sheet Filed By The Assessee, Noted That The Assessee Company Has Issued 14,72,000 Equity Shares At A Premium Of Rs.115. From The Various Details Furnished By The Assessee, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Issued Shares To The Following Persons/Parties:-

purchased the shares at a premium of Rs.4.5 crores and further granted loan to the assessee company of Rs.4.33 crores. Similarly, in the case of ARG Auto Components P. Ltd., the income returned by the said company as per the income-tax return is only Rs.7,03,554/-. A perusal of the bank statement shows that before debit funds were

VERSATILE DATAMICTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Versatile Datamatics (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Land, Bengali Market Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi 110001 Pan : Aabcv8793K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aakcs2341F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal, Ca Department By : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2018 Per Bench: These Appeals Are By The Respective Assessees Challenging The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)- Xxvi, New Delhi ( For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. Since Both The Assessees Are Group Companies & The Impugned Assessment Had Arisen Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations Dated 28.3.2015 & Facts & Grounds Raised In This Appeal Are Similar, We Deem It Just & Convenient To Dispose Them Of By Way Of This Common Order.

bogus companies within the group and having received share capital from such outside non- descript/shell companies and thereafter making the same available in the operating companies of the group through a layered structure as per the instructions of the promoter and his other employees/office bearers. 4. In his order, Ld. Assessing Officer examined the tax returns from the income

SUPERIOR CALLTECH (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Versatile Datamatics (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Land, Bengali Market Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi 110001 Pan : Aabcv8793K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aakcs2341F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal, Ca Department By : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2018 Per Bench: These Appeals Are By The Respective Assessees Challenging The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)- Xxvi, New Delhi ( For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. Since Both The Assessees Are Group Companies & The Impugned Assessment Had Arisen Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations Dated 28.3.2015 & Facts & Grounds Raised In This Appeal Are Similar, We Deem It Just & Convenient To Dispose Them Of By Way Of This Common Order.

bogus companies within the group and having received share capital from such outside non- descript/shell companies and thereafter making the same available in the operating companies of the group through a layered structure as per the instructions of the promoter and his other employees/office bearers. 4. In his order, Ld. Assessing Officer examined the tax returns from the income

METBRASS PLASSIM INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Versatile Datamatics (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Land, Bengali Market Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi 110001 Pan : Aabcv8793K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Superior Calltech (P) Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aakcs2341F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Metbrass Plassim India Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9501A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal, Ca Department By : Ms. Shefali Swaroop, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2018 Per Bench: These Appeals Are By The Respective Assessees Challenging The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)- Xxvi, New Delhi ( For Short “Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. Since Both The Assessees Are Group Companies & The Impugned Assessment Had Arisen Pursuant To The Search & Seizure Operations Dated 28.3.2015 & Facts & Grounds Raised In This Appeal Are Similar, We Deem It Just & Convenient To Dispose Them Of By Way Of This Common Order.

bogus companies within the group and having received share capital from such outside non- descript/shell companies and thereafter making the same available in the operating companies of the group through a layered structure as per the instructions of the promoter and his other employees/office bearers. 4. In his order, Ld. Assessing Officer examined the tax returns from the income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. LUXMAN BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

bogus, non-existent paper entities having no worth business to advance such huge share capital and share application money. Therefore, the assessee has miserably failed to prove all the three ingredients required as per the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the AO was fully justified