DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.36,35,04,746/- on work- in-progress on the basis of statements of Mr. Lodha and Mr. Lokesh Kumar was again bad in law because on 18.4.2019, Mr. Lodha had withdrawn / retracted from his statement recorded on 10.4.2019 and the statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 7.4.2019 was not only against the provisions of Section 132

MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.36,35,04,746/- on work- in-progress on the basis of statements of Mr. Lodha and Mr. Lokesh Kumar was again bad in law because on 18.4.2019, Mr. Lodha had withdrawn / retracted from his statement recorded on 10.4.2019 and the statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 7.4.2019 was not only against the provisions of Section 132

MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED ,SOUTH EAST DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.36,35,04,746/- on work- in-progress on the basis of statements of Mr. Lodha and Mr. Lokesh Kumar was again bad in law because on 18.4.2019, Mr. Lodha had withdrawn / retracted from his statement recorded on 10.4.2019 and the statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 7.4.2019 was not only against the provisions of Section 132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, DELHI vs. M.B. POWER (MADHAYA PRADESH) LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.36,35,04,746/- on work- in-progress on the basis of statements of Mr. Lodha and Mr. Lokesh Kumar was again bad in law because on 18.4.2019, Mr. Lodha had withdrawn / retracted from his statement recorded on 10.4.2019 and the statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 7.4.2019 was not only against the provisions of Section 132

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.36,35,04,746/- on work- in-progress on the basis of statements of Mr. Lodha and Mr. Lokesh Kumar was again bad in law because on 18.4.2019, Mr. Lodha had withdrawn / retracted from his statement recorded on 10.4.2019 and the statement of Mr. Lokesh Kumar recorded on 7.4.2019 was not only against the provisions of Section 132

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

132 of the Act, there is not a single finding or material to suggest that the Assessee Society has abandoned, diluted or diverted from its principal and predominant object of imparting education, or that its funds were applied towards any object other than education. Hence in the absence of any such allegation or evidence demonstrating the deviation from the predominant

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132 of the Act in the case of the assessee on 26.10.2007. After the regular assessments proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were taken up by the assessee and during the pendency thereof; the AO received material / information from the AO of Shri. Manoj Kumar Jain. As per the second proviso to section 153C

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

132(4) of the Act, the assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed by the assessee under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

132(4) of the Act, the assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed by the assessee under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

132(4) of the Act, the assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed by the assessee under

ENN VEE HOLDINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

132 (4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra).” 26. With regard to M/s Om Energy Ltd., the allegations of the Revenue cannot be upheld owing to the orders passed in the case of M/s Om Energy Ltd. in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) for various

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. REALTIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

132 (4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Harjeev Aggarwal (supra).” 26. With regard to M/s Om Energy Ltd., the allegations of the Revenue cannot be upheld owing to the orders passed in the case of M/s Om Energy Ltd. in scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) for various