BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), C.R. BUILDING, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Vs. Dcit, F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash Circle-4(2), Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Dcit, Vs. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Circle-4(2), F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash New Delhi Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

Section 269T of the Act, per se have been wrongly applied by the ld AO. We find that assessee had merely recovered its pre-existing debts from thousands of customers in cash and had deposited the same in the bank account, including the deposits made during demonetization period. From the table furnished by the assessee, we find that cash recovery

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. BHARTIYA SAMRUDHHI FINANCE LIMITED, STREET KOTI, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Vs. Dcit, F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash Circle-4(2), Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Dcit, Vs. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Circle-4(2), F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash New Delhi Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

Section 269T of the Act, per se have been wrongly applied by the ld AO. We find that assessee had merely recovered its pre-existing debts from thousands of customers in cash and had deposited the same in the bank account, including the deposits made during demonetization period. From the table furnished by the assessee, we find that cash recovery

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SHRI SIDHDATA ISPAT (P) LTD.

disallowed. Its appeal was allowed by the CIT (Appeals). The relevant part of the reasoning of the CIT (Appeals) is extracted from his order: “From the part of explanation reproduced by the AO himself in the assessment order, it is clear that the manufacturing had started towards the end of the August 05. There are a few instances of cash

DCIT, NOIDA vs. ANKUR MITTAL, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Assessee’s

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowing of claim of exempt LTCG of Rs.47,52,507/-and addition of Rs.95,050/- u/s 69C of the Act. The assessee has filed the appeal, which is pending before the NFAC. 4. The Ld. PCIT, Noida passed an order u/s 263 of the Act on 27-03-2022 by setting aside the initial assessment order passed

M/S. UNITECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

269T taken or accepted during the previous year) attached with tax audit report, there is long list of parties from which the assessee has accepted, as well as repaid deposit and in the list provided there are many parties where the Income tax particulars as well as complete address are missing. IT(TP)A No.6181/Del/2015 and 2 Others Unitech Ltd.Vs

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

269T taken or accepted during the previous year) attached with tax audit report, there is long list of parties from which the assessee has accepted, as well as repaid deposit and in the list provided there are many parties where the Income tax particulars as well as complete address are missing. IT(TP)A No.6181/Del/2015 and 2 Others Unitech Ltd.Vs

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GANPATI HYDRO POWER PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 269 SS and 269T in respect of the parties where by mutual agreement the "Debtors" have been converted as "Loan and Advance", "creditors for goods" have been treated as "unsecured loan" as it is a case of taking or accepting loans and deposits otherwise than by an account payee cheques / bank drafts. The AO in his order vide para

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee within the meaning of provision of section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 13,68,30,422/- has escaped assessment as defined by section 147 of the Act for assessment year

ACRES BUILDWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1 (3), , NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acres Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(3), 6-D, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Khan Pur, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan: Aaacj0152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venketesh Chourasia, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.08.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10389/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 10.12.2019, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

disallowance arbitrarily rejecting the contention of the assessee that the expenses incurred in earlier year were capitalized in that year and in fact charged to the profit and loss account in the year under consideration as the project was in the pre-commencement stage in the earlier year and as the project was completed in the year under consideration

DALMIA FINANCE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.27,76,92,000/-, Ground No.2 is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallow the amount written off in the profit & loss account to the tune of Rs.20,71,90,000/- and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the transactions claimed by the assessee were not in the normal and ordinary course of business and loss so incurred was also not a genuine business loss

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DALMIA FINANCE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.27,76,92,000/-, Ground No.2 is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

disallow the amount written off in the profit & loss account to the tune of Rs.20,71,90,000/- and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee on the ground that the transactions claimed by the assessee were not in the normal and ordinary course of business and loss so incurred was also not a genuine business loss

SHIVANGI INTERNATIONAL,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishishivangi International, Vs. Cit, Meerut Cold Storage Building, Aayakar Bhawan, Delhi Road, Meerut Bhaisali Ground, Meerut Pan: Aadfs3912Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowable. 6. In views of the above finding she held that order passed by the ld Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue vide order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18..03.2013. 7. The ld AR vehemently contested that order passed by the ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable because