JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposits made by the assessee with its bankers, as noticed above, more or less compared with the cash sale transactions entered into by it with its customers. The Tribunal’s view was that given the fact that there was no allegation made by the revenue that the assessee had backdated its entries to enhance its cash sale figures, one could

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposits made by the assessee with its bankers, as noticed above, more or less compared with the cash sale transactions entered into by it with its customers. The Tribunal’s view was that given the fact that there was no allegation made by the revenue that the assessee had backdated its entries to enhance its cash sale figures, one could

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposits made by the assessee with its bankers, as noticed above, more or less compared with the cash sale transactions entered into by it with its customers. The Tribunal’s view was that given the fact that there was no allegation made by the revenue that the assessee had backdated its entries to enhance its cash sale figures, one could

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. SALUJA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahaydcit, Ghaziabad, Vs. Saluja Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 201, First Floor, A-1, Plot No. 1, Delhi Meerut Road, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, New Arya Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Up-201002 Up-201001 (Pan: Aaucs6233L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

cash deposit. Thus, all these deletions by Ld. CIT(A), needs to be verified. 4. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. 5. We further note that with regard to addition of Rs. 79,14,204/- Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under:- “5.1.1 Ground No. 1 to 3 pertain to the addition of Rs. 79,14,204/- by invoking

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(4), NEW DELHI

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

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

cash deposits in the bank accounts, but the Ld. AO for his convenience found this offer as acceptance by the assessee appellant for taxation of all the credit entries in the bank accounts @ 2.5%. 7. Coming to the objection on quantification of the credits in the bank accounts, it is submitted that the Ld. AO has given benefit of intra

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(4), NEW DELHI

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

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

cash deposits in the bank accounts, but the Ld. AO for his convenience found this offer as acceptance by the assessee appellant for taxation of all the credit entries in the bank accounts @ 2.5%. 7. Coming to the objection on quantification of the credits in the bank accounts, it is submitted that the Ld. AO has given benefit of intra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ADAAB HOTELS LTD, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Adaab Hotels Limited, New Delhi. 81, Adchini, Sr. Aurobindo Marg, Delhi – 110 016. (Pan : Aabca0850G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 06.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 09.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs 1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Has Failed To Produce The Relevant Document As Required By The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,70,52,504/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act By Ao, On The Basis Of Fresh/New Evidences Produced By The Assessee During The Appellate Proceedings Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Failed To Produce

depreciation. Based on the information available with the Assessing Officer that during the demonetization period, the assessee had deposited cash

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation in the net cash available with the assessee which is a non-cash flow item. Further assessee has submitted a cash flow statement which is placed at page number 23 of the paper book. The assessee has shown opening cash in hand of ₹ 517,397. To show the availability of the above cash as on 31st of March

DHARAM SINGH ,U.P vs. PR. CIT BAREILLY , U.P

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

Depreciation Rs.83,923/- 5. After making addition of disallowances noted above, the total income was determined at Rs.8,91,626/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. After completion of assessment, as aforesaid, learned PCIT called for and examined the assessment records. While doing so, he was of the view that in course of assessment

FINE GUJRANWALA JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deposit during demonetisation period, showing that the same was from the cash sales of the assessee n. Copy of Fixed Assets Bill o. Copy of Ledger of ICICI Credit Card for the period 01-04-2016 to 31-03-2017 p. Copy of Receipts of TDS Returns 11. Further, another more notice u/s 142(1) of the Act has been

ROOP KISHORE MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

depreciation to the assessee as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee may produce other evidences before A.O, if necessary or called for by the A.O. on this issue. With these directions Ground No.1 of the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. 7. On Ground No.2, assessee challenged the addition of Rs.24

DHEERAJ THAKRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

cash deposited in bank account. 2. That CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs.2,31,000 made by the AO on account of rental income. 5 3. That CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs.4,20,000 made by the AO on account of professional income. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend

ITO, GURGAON vs. SHRI PRAVEEN YADAV, GURGAON

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2011-12 Ito, Vs. Sh. Praveen Yadav Ward 3(2) Prop. M/S Alpha Technologies Hsiidc Building & Marketing Co. Udyog Vihar Phase V H.No.2249P, Sector 46 Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aaypy5403B (Appellant) (Respondent)

deposited out of cash received from contract receipts although no details of such payers have ever been furnished. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in allowing relief on the basis of report submitted by the AO in which it was never accepted that the books are complete

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S BRIJWASI IMPEX PVT. LTD., DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assistant Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 (Pan: Aabcb7530L) Cross-Objection No.9/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, Central Circle-12, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 (Pan: Aabcb7530L) Cross-Objection No.10/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, Central Circle-12, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Brijwasi Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170-Kucha Mahajani, Central Circle 12, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170-Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation relatable to earlier assessment year in terms of clause (III) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act?” The relevant facts of that case noted in para no. 2 of the decision are that the AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, had made several additions, relying upon the incriminating material found in the course

VIPUL KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

cash withdrawals from the bank account and, therefore, when there are large number of deposits and withdrawals in the bank account, only the peak balance should be sustained and not the entire amount of deposit. We find some force in the above argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the bank statement shows that only

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL JAIN, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Sh. Sahil Jain, Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1), 117, Engineering Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Afspj1105L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

deposited in the bank by the appellant is taxable as income under section 68 of the Act and thereafter computed the demand in accordance with the rates specified in section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. 1. It is submitted that the learned Assessing officer has failed to appreciate that the amendment made

MR. SANDEEP MANGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 2099/Del./2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

deposit in bank u/s 69 in spite of valid explanation having been furnished by the appellant. 9) Without prejudice to the ground no. 2 and ground no. 5, 5.1 and 5.2 that rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income is incorrect, the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming separate addition u/s 40A(3) made

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANAND JEWELLERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

deposited in the bank to clear the dues and to pay for purchases. This is a normal business practice and nothing adverse can be concluded out of the same. Purchases from Anishka Jewellers. The Ld. AO has also formed an opinion that purchases from M/s Anishka Jewellers are not genuine. However, the following facts prove beyond doubt that the purchases