SHRI BABA BALAKPURI DHARMARTH AUSHDHALAYA ANF TRUST,ROHTAK vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

demonetization which were lying in the goallakhs of the assessee. This was also disclosed in the receipt and payment account. The bank account submitted by the assessee also supports this. The justification given by the assessee for holding the car and using it for the activities of the trust is also justifies the use of claiming of the depreciation

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

ACIT, CC-01, NEW DELHI vs. HARISONS DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

demonetization representa genuine cash sales, when the Assessee did not furnish any evidence what so ever such as name or address of buyers, thereby thwarting any verification of genuineness of such sales. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, LL. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,62,347/-on account of business promotion

HARISONS DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-1, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

demonetization representa genuine cash sales, when the Assessee did not furnish any evidence what so ever such as name or address of buyers, thereby thwarting any verification of genuineness of such sales. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, LL. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 1,62,347/-on account of business promotion

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

demonetization. 16.7. Similarly, the Tribunal examined the cash sales figures for November of the following three years to see if there were any anomalies. The Tribunal noticed that the cash sales made in November 2014, was Rs.16.49 crores; whereas in November 2015, cash sales made was Rs. 45.18 crores, while in November 2016, cash sales recorded a slight increase

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

demonetization. 16.7. Similarly, the Tribunal examined the cash sales figures for November of the following three years to see if there were any anomalies. The Tribunal noticed that the cash sales made in November 2014, was Rs.16.49 crores; whereas in November 2015, cash sales made was Rs. 45.18 crores, while in November 2016, cash sales recorded a slight increase

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

demonetization. 16.7. Similarly, the Tribunal examined the cash sales figures for November of the following three years to see if there were any anomalies. The Tribunal noticed that the cash sales made in November 2014, was Rs.16.49 crores; whereas in November 2015, cash sales made was Rs. 45.18 crores, while in November 2016, cash sales recorded a slight increase

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

demonetization. 16.7. Similarly, the Tribunal examined the cash sales figures for November of the following three years to see if there were any anomalies. The Tribunal noticed that the cash sales made in November 2014, was Rs.16.49 crores; whereas in November 2015, cash sales made was Rs. 45.18 crores, while in November 2016, cash sales recorded a slight increase

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)

demonetization period as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of 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

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

demonetization amounting to Rs.5,89,13,065/- as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in assessment order dated 18.12.2019 as under: “1. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find the pertinent question to be decided by us is as to whether the surrendered amount can be taxable

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.

demonetization period. Thus, appellant’s contention that 4 Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, section 68 does not apply in its case, does not stand, as cash sales is not proved.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A) dated 21/06/2022, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the ground mentioned above. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted

METRO AGRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 17(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshmetro Agri Industries Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M. K. Bhatt & Co, Ward-49(1), Chartered Accountants, G- Delhi 7, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aahcm2408G Assessee By : Shri Malav Goswani, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

depreciation brought forward from AY 2014–15 and the same was set off to the extent of business income, which resulted into Nil income being filed by the assessee in the return. However, the assessee declared book profit of ₹7,80,204/- u/s 115JB of the Act and paid taxes thereon. The assessee furnished the entire computation of income, audited

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, ARA CENTRE vs. ARCHOHM CONSULTS PRIVATE LIMITED , ANAND LOK

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Archohm Consults Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-6, Anand Lok, New Delhi Ara Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacca6996Q

demonetization period The Id. CIT(A) has erred in considering the abnormal increase in cash deposits during the period of demonetisation compared to pre-demonetisation period. 2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 3,60,50,216/- made u/s 69A of the Act as the Source of investment made by the assessee- company

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

demonetization. The brief facts of the issue is that post demonetization, between 9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, assessee deposited cash in the following bank accounts. Name of the bank amount in crores 79.99 Bank of India 4 Canara Bank 4 Central bank of India 0.08 Central bank of India 2.99 IDBI Bank Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

demonetization. The brief facts of the issue is that post demonetization, between 9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, assessee deposited cash in the following bank accounts. Name of the bank amount in crores 79.99 Bank of India 4 Canara Bank 4 Central bank of India 0.08 Central bank of India 2.99 IDBI Bank Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

demonetization. The brief facts of the issue is that post demonetization, between 9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, assessee deposited cash in the following bank accounts. Name of the bank amount in crores 79.99 Bank of India 4 Canara Bank 4 Central bank of India 0.08 Central bank of India 2.99 IDBI Bank Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

demonetization. The brief facts of the issue is that post demonetization, between 9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, assessee deposited cash in the following bank accounts. Name of the bank amount in crores 79.99 Bank of India 4 Canara Bank 4 Central bank of India 0.08 Central bank of India 2.99 IDBI Bank Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

demonetization. The brief facts of the issue is that post demonetization, between 9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, assessee deposited cash in the following bank accounts. Name of the bank amount in crores 79.99 Bank of India 4 Canara Bank 4 Central bank of India 0.08 Central bank of India 2.99 IDBI Bank Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

demonetization. The brief facts of the issue is that post demonetization, between 9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, assessee deposited cash in the following bank accounts. Name of the bank amount in crores 79.99 Bank of India 4 Canara Bank 4 Central bank of India 0.08 Central bank of India 2.99 IDBI Bank Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019