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

unexplained money u/s 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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

unexplained. Hence, the revenue passed the reassessment order. During appeal the appellant got the opportunity to challenge the reassessment order on facts and in law. The appellant has been allowed relief on merit. The assessment order stands merged in this order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reassessment proceeding and the order was bad in law. In any case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

unexplained. Hence, the revenue passed the reassessment order. During appeal the appellant got the opportunity to challenge the reassessment order on facts and in law. The appellant has been allowed relief on merit. The assessment order stands merged in this order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reassessment proceeding and the order was bad in law. In any case

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

money, or value of articles not recorded in the books of account or the unexplained expenditure may be deemed to be the income of the assessee. It follows that the moment a satisfactory explanation is given about such nature and source by the assessee, then the source would stand disclosed and will therefore be known and the income would

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

money, or value of articles not recorded in the books of account or the unexplained expenditure may be deemed to be the income of the assessee. It follows that the moment a satisfactory explanation is given about such nature and source by the assessee, then the source would stand disclosed and will therefore be known and the income would

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

money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order in this respect. Therefore, the provisions of section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are not attracted on the surrendered amount of Rs. 15 lacs. The said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was offered in case any discrepancy is found

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

unexplained investment. (v) In the case of CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF, IT no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del), the Court had held as under:- "This Court in its order dated 28.9.2012 held that (a) Section 69B in ) terms requires the assessing officer to first prove that the assessee has actually expended an amount which he has not fully recorded

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

unexplained as the source is the assessee’s own explained money, no addition was required for this amount of Rs.35890056/-. It may be pointed out that the assessee has neither capitalized the bills of fixed assets in its books of accounts and nor claimed any depreciation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

unexplained as the source is the assessee’s own explained money, no addition was required for this amount of Rs.35890056/-. It may be pointed out that the assessee has neither capitalized the bills of fixed assets in its books of accounts and nor claimed any depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

depreciation on the plant & machinery. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 46,70,00,000/-, on account of share capital/ application money, thereby treating the same as unexplained

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

depreciation on the plant & machinery. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 46,70,00,000/-, on account of share capital/ application money, thereby treating the same as unexplained

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

depreciation on the plant & machinery. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 46,70,00,000/-, on account of share capital/ application money, thereby treating the same as unexplained

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

depreciation on the plant & machinery. The observation of the Ld. A.O. are either factually incorrect or are legally untenable. 9. That on the facts of the case and under the law ,the Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 46,70,00,000/-, on account of share capital/ application money, thereby treating the same as unexplained

STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of appellant. I, therefore, confirm the additions made by him and dismiss the ground taken by appellant.” 11. The ld AR submitted that the assessee has submitted copy of the board resolution, ITR, audited financial statement, PAN, bank statement, confirmation, company master data, allotment letter and allotment return

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 18. In the first appellate proceedings, it was held that assessee had produced sufficient evidence in support of proof of identity of the creditors and confirmation of transactions by many documents, such as, share application form etc. First appellate authority also noted that there was no requirement under section

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 18. In the first appellate proceedings, it was held that assessee had produced sufficient evidence in support of proof of identity of the creditors and confirmation of transactions by many documents, such as, share application form etc. First appellate authority also noted that there was no requirement under section

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 18. In the first appellate proceedings, it was held that assessee had produced sufficient evidence in support of proof of identity of the creditors and confirmation of transactions by many documents, such as, share application form etc. First appellate authority also noted that there was no requirement under section

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 18. In the first appellate proceedings, it was held that assessee had produced sufficient evidence in support of proof of identity of the creditors and confirmation of transactions by many documents, such as, share application form etc. First appellate authority also noted that there was no requirement under section

RAHUL ANIL AHUJA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 31(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is

Bench: Us For Assessment

depreciation on plant and machinery – Rs. 12,963/-, Page 9 of 13 ITA Nos.- 6028 & 6029/Del/2019 Rahul Anil Ahuja d) disallowance of deduction u/s 80G of the Act– Rs. 3000/- 11. The aforesaid additions were upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) by observing as under in respect of each of the additions:- Addition on account of unsecured loans