DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

disallowance made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the captioned appeals are heard together. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of the case for Assessment Year 2011-12 are considered, which are as follows:- An assessment order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was completed against the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

disallowance made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), the captioned appeals are heard together. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of the case for Assessment Year 2011-12 are considered, which are as follows:- An assessment order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was completed against the Assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TUSHAR STOCK & SHARE BROKERS P. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

132A by the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department and that notices under Section 158BD were validly and legally issued I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 11 of 30 to the assessees as per the conditions mentioned therein. ACIT also made inquiries in respect of the bank accounts as intimated by JCIT. ACIT in both the cases recorded that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XIII vs. R.K.MITTAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

132A by the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department and that notices under Section 158BD were validly and legally issued I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 11 of 30 to the assessees as per the conditions mentioned therein. ACIT also made inquiries in respect of the bank accounts as intimated by JCIT. ACIT in both the cases recorded that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TUSHAR STOCK & SHARE BROKERS P. LTD.

132A by the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department and that notices under Section 158BD were validly and legally issued 2011:DHC:1789-DB I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 11 of 30 to the assessees as per the conditions mentioned therein. ACIT also made inquiries in respect of the bank accounts as intimated by JCIT. ACIT in both

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XIII vs. MITTAL CONSUL & CO

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

132A by the Investigating Wing of the Income Tax Department and that notices under Section 158BD were validly and legally issued I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 11 of 30 to the assessees as per the conditions mentioned therein. ACIT also made inquiries in respect of the bank accounts as intimated by JCIT. ACIT in both the cases recorded that

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MODI INDUSTRIES LTD, MODINAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss