DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

3) of s. 145, empowers the AOs to disregard the books of accounts submitted by the assessee only if he is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or, the method of accounting employed by the assessee or on account of AS notified under sub-s. (2), not being particularly followed by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

3) of s. 145, empowers the AOs to disregard the books of accounts submitted by the assessee only if he is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or, the method of accounting employed by the assessee or on account of AS notified under sub-s. (2), not being particularly followed by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

3) of s. 145, empowers the AOs to disregard the books of accounts submitted by the assessee only if he is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or, the method of accounting employed by the assessee or on account of AS notified under sub-s. (2), not being particularly followed by the assessee

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

3) of s. 145, empowers the AOs to disregard the books of accounts submitted by the assessee only if he is not satisfied with the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or, the method of accounting employed by the assessee or on account of AS notified under sub-s. (2), not being particularly followed by the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

145(8) of the Act is not based on well founded ground is held as DCIT Vs. Deepti Agarwal, ITA No. 3609/Del/2013 & CO No. 234/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) bad in law. Therefore the book results are admitted for the purpose of computation of income. 14. Regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

JCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SYSTEM CONTROLS & TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is allowed and the appeal filed by assessee is

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Anadi N. Mishrasystem Controls & Transformers Pvt. Jcit, Ltd., Range-2, Cgo-2, Vs. Ghaziabad Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Hapur Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

145 (2) of the Act, the trading addition has been to the Account Of Rs. 7482642/-. However, since additions totalling Rs. 2944719/- under the heads purchases from Raj Lubricants not sold nor shown in the closing stock (Rs. 316250/-), disallowance of job work made in contravention to the provisions of section 40A(3) to the two fabricators (Rs. 2327698/-), profit

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

depreciation of Rs. 9,14,57,036/- following the arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee

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

section 132(4) of the Act of Sri Sampat Shrama is incriminating material found during the course of search. We have observed that said statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was recorded at his residential premises during search proceeding carried out separately. In our opinion, the statement of Sh. Sampat Sharma was not recorded in search proceeding of the assessee