DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

deposit ratio and also the GP ratio, nothing adverse is inferred. In fact, it is also not in dispute that the A.O also has accepted sales figures and the extrapolation by AO is based on the sales recorded by the appellant in its books. What has been estimated is the quantum of cash transaction which has been effected

ACIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SAMVARDHAN MARKETING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicialmember Acit, Circle 22(2), Vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2366, Satya Chambers, Rajguru Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aalcs8254L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar, Ca Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am :

Cash deposit during the period of demonetization and ignored the facts that the AO has made the addition as the assessee company failed to justify the same. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

deposits of the cash proceeds must likewise be accepted. To uphold the sales but disallow the related deposits is inherently

MANGAT RAM,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-1, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mangat Ram, Vs Ito, Vikas Bhatta Co., Bko Kiwana, Ward -1, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Panipat. Pan-Agipr2718L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Navjot Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

cash deposits and rightly offered to tax in its books of accounts, therefore, it does not call for separate disallowance

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Disallowance of alleged bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

GURCHARAN SINGH BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Gurcharan Singh Bhatia, Vs. Acit, C-9, Westend Colony, Circle 47(1), New Delhi-1100 21 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) (Pan:Ahnpb4697E) Assessee By : S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Rajkumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2024 Order Per Challa Nagendra Prasad:This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi

cash deposited in bank invoking section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Both the above actions being erroneous unlawful and untenable it is prayed that the same must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.” 2. The first ground of appeal relating to disallowance

V.L JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

deposits in the subject year with that of the later year. For the Pr. CIT to say that this aspect was not examined by the AO is ex facie erroneous for it is against the facts on record. (vii) The Pr. CIT's observation that purchases made during the month of November 2016 did not match with the comparative sales

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

deposit\nPage 16\nITA No.4039/Del/2024\nSunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18)\nin the bank account out of cash in the regular books of account cannot\nbe termed as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act as the\ncase made out by the assessee was duly considered by the First\nAppellate Authority. It further appears that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, DELHI vs. DL HEERA BHAI JEWELLERY ARCADE PVT. LTD. , DELHI

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

cash deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank of Ringing Bells Pvt. Ltd. on 23/11/2016 on the basis of material evidence and statement of searched person and also the admission of the partners of the Assessee. ? 8). Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in sustaining the proportionate addition

DL HEERA BHAI JEWELLERY ARCADE PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

cash deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank of Ringing Bells Pvt. Ltd. on 23/11/2016 on the basis of material evidence and statement of searched person and also the admission of the partners of the Assessee. ? 8). Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in sustaining the proportionate addition

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

deposits in the manner required by the A.O. ITA Nos. 883 & 884/Del/2020 ITA Nos. 1026 & 1949/Del/2021 Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,37,500/- overlooking the facts of the case that during the month of October and November, 2016 huge amount of cash

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

deposits in the manner required by the A.O. ITA Nos. 883 & 884/Del/2020 ITA Nos. 1026 & 1949/Del/2021 Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,37,500/- overlooking the facts of the case that during the month of October and November, 2016 huge amount of cash

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

deposits in the manner required by the A.O. ITA Nos. 883 & 884/Del/2020 ITA Nos. 1026 & 1949/Del/2021 Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,37,500/- overlooking the facts of the case that during the month of October and November, 2016 huge amount of cash

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

deposits in the manner required by the A.O. ITA Nos. 883 & 884/Del/2020 ITA Nos. 1026 & 1949/Del/2021 Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,37,500/- overlooking the facts of the case that during the month of October and November, 2016 huge amount of cash

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

deposits in the manner required by the A.O. ITA Nos. 883 & 884/Del/2020 ITA Nos. 1026 & 1949/Del/2021 Neha Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. ii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,37,500/- overlooking the facts of the case that during the month of October and November, 2016 huge amount of cash