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

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted in this case That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the learned Assessing Officer has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited in the bank by the appellant is taxable as income under section

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

depreciation. 1. You have raised unsecured loans during the year as per point no- 31(a) of your Tax Audit report. In respect of each unsecured loan raised furnish the following 1. 1. Confirmation as well as ITR and bank statement (for FY 2016-17) of the loan providers. 2. Copy of account of these loan providers in your books

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A of IT Act, 1961. 5.3. Let us examine the legal position vis-a- vis the facts of the present case w.r.t presumption of section 292C. Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court vide its order dated 10.02.2016 in the case of Pr. CIT VS M/s Delco India Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2016) 2 TMI 607 (Del.) wherein it has been

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

69A of IT Act. Since, the 22 Vinay Chaudhary assessee failed to justify the receipts from sale of shares as capital gain, the exemption u/s 54F is irrelevant to allow.” (Addition: Rs.4,14,06,000/-) 23. Regarding the above denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the ld. AR in the written arguments submitted in para

V GO MOTOR PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

69A of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Additionally, he added back further sum of Rs.53,94,028 under section 69 of the Act doubting the genuineness of expenditure incurred on account of labour, local purchases and other payments. 4 AY: 2014-15 6. Consequent to such additions, the Assessing Officer also disallowed the depreciation

ANKITA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; ITA No. 687/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2017-18): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,03,651 /- made by the Assessing Officer on account of car expenses and depreciation

ANKITA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; ITA No. 687/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2017-18): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,03,651 /- made by the Assessing Officer on account of car expenses and depreciation

PAWAN RAJ GOYAL ,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

69A of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) noted that before him, it was stated that provisional receipt of Rs.31,29,300/- is duly substantiated from the documents seized during the course of search. He noted that assessee has stated that AO has erred in determining the cash-in-hand due to following reasons :- “The AO wrongly taken deemed expenses

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

69A, read with section 292C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Presumptive addition) - Assessment year 2009- 10 - Assessee sold a property and derived long-term capital gain - During search, diary of a third party was seized from residence of assessee - This diary had notings which showed an amount of Rs. 1.15 crores as sale consideration - Assessing Officer observed

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

69A, read with section 292C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Presumptive addition) - Assessment year 2009- 10 - Assessee sold a property and derived long-term capital gain - During search, diary of a third party was seized from residence of assessee - This diary had notings which showed an amount of Rs. 1.15 crores as sale consideration - Assessing Officer observed

PUNIHANI INTERNATIONAL ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-19,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Punihani International, Central Circle-19, W-143, South Delhi, Greater New Delhi Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K M/S. Punihani International, Vs. Dcit, W-143, South Delhi, Greater Central Circle-19, Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K

depreciation on car, on which we do not find any infirmity. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed and Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1748/Del/2022 M/s. Punihani International 14. No argument was advanced by the Learned AR before us with regard to Ground No. 5 raised

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. PUNIHANI INTERNATIONAL , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. M/S. Punihani International, Central Circle-19, W-143, South Delhi, Greater New Delhi Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K M/S. Punihani International, Vs. Dcit, W-143, South Delhi, Greater Central Circle-19, Kailash, Part-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaafp6858K

depreciation on car, on which we do not find any infirmity. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed and Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1748/Del/2022 M/s. Punihani International 14. No argument was advanced by the Learned AR before us with regard to Ground No. 5 raised

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

69A, 69B and 69C will not apply, in which event the provisions regarding deductions etc. applicable to the relevant head of income under which such income falls will automatically be attracted. In the facts of the case income has been brought to tax u/s 69C of the Act on fulfilling the requirements by virtue of the deeming provisions.The scope

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

69A, 69B and 69C will not apply, in which event the provisions regarding deductions etc. applicable to the relevant head of income under which such income falls will automatically be attracted. In the facts of the case income has been brought to tax u/s 69C of the Act on fulfilling the requirements by virtue of the deeming provisions.The scope

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

69A of the Act for\n assessment years 2022-23 and 2023-24 in this regard.\nHe\nsubmitted that the entries in diary pertain to the employee's father's\ntransport business and the same has got absolutely no link with\nthe transactions of Assessee Society at all. The affidavit of employee\nwas also filed on record owning

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

depreciation. 7.4 That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that out of an expenditure debited in the profit and loss account of Rs. 3,76,74,222/- the assessee itself had not claimed a amount of Rs. 2,83,11,092/- representing the provision made for advances, sinking fund, ground rent and property tax and as such

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAGAN AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

69A and treated as income from undisclosed sources and assessed under the head Income from undisclosed sources by the revenue. 23. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the grounds that the stock was valued at higher rates instead of market value and the stock shown at Noida is a hypothetical figure. It was also held that

SYED KHALID SAIFULLAH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4744/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Syed Khalid Saifullah, Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 4, F-8, Shaheen Bag, Ward-28(4), 40, Futa Road, Abul Fazel New Delhi-110002 Enclave, Part-Ii, Zamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025 Gupta Aggarwal Sharda & Jain, Chartered Accountants, D-178, Ground Floor, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad-201011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaxps2952G Assessee By : Sh. Manish Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

69A of the Act.” 3. The assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs.6,32,710/- on 19,07.2011, and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 completed 24.02.2014. The assessee is a retired teacher from Jamia Milia Islamia School, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. The assessee had shown income from Civil Contractor Business, Pension and Interest Income