ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance supported by the relevant law and fact, liable to be dismissed.” 14. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the above decisions, we direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee as the provisions of section

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

section 10(34)/l 0(35)/l 0(15)(iv)(h) of the Act: Source Name of securities Amount 35 Detail of dividend exempt u/s 10(34)/10(35) Mutual Fund IDFC Arbitage Fund dividend 68,74,941 (Direct plan) 68,74,941 Birla Sunlife Cash Plus-Daily 44,987 Dividend- Direct Plan Reinvestment Shares

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 in cases of Swapping of shares. Therefore, in view of above discussion and by respectfully following the order of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Elative Building Solutions (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, ground of appeal Nos.1

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

68. However, it should have been disallowed u/s 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and should be added to the total income of the assessee under the head of business income by the AO but AO failed to do so….” 4. In view of the foregoing discussed facts, the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

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

68 is not for the purpose of allowability or disallowability of any deduction and moreover, the question of disallowance may arise in respect of any expenditure or allowance claimed by the assessee. In respect of a sale consideration, there cannot be any question of any disallowance. In the second paragraph above, the Assessing Officer has alternatively applied Section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BILLET PROCON PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad\Nand\Nshri S Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No. 1382/Del/2017\Nनिर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13\N\Nito,\Nward-5(1), Room No.379,\N3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate,\Nnew Delhi.\Npan No.Aalfb8236G\Nअपीलार्थी Appellant\N\Nassessee By\Ndr. Kapil Goel, Adv.\N\Nrevenue By\Nshri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr\N\Nसुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing:\N27.05.2025\Nउद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On 25.06.2025\N\Nआदेश /Order\N\Nper C.N. Prasad, J.M.\N\Nthis Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals)-2, New Delhi Dated 30.11.2016 For The Ay 2012-13.\Nrevenue In Its Appeal Raised The Following Grounds: -\N\N1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,52,00,000/- Made By Ao U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act On Account Of Unexplained Credits In The Form Of Share Capital/Share Premium During The Year.\N\N2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Assessee Has Discharged The Onus Of Proving The Identify & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers & The Genuineness Of The Subscription.\"\N\N2. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, At The Outset, Submitted That The Assessee Filed Petition Under Rule 27 Of Itat Rules As A Defense Plea To Support Ld. Cit(Appeals) Order On Legal & Jurisdictional Grounds Raised Before The Ld. Cit(Appeals) But Was Rejected Vide Para 3.

68 is rejected.\"\n\n7. The assessee filed petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules to support the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order on legal ground which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as stated above.\n\n8. We observed that whether the petition filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules supporting the order

FEATHER INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance from Section 69C to Section 68 is not permissible in similar facts. The ld. counsel next submitted that the invoices

FEATHER INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance from Section 69C to Section 68 is not permissible in similar facts. The ld. counsel next submitted that the invoices

SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Praveen Gupta, Vs. Acit, D-101, First Floor, Tower Circle-2, No. D, Caitriona Meerut Residential Apartment Complex, Ambience Island, Gurgoan-22001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acjpg4777H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

disallowing the expenses of Rs. 1,34,00,000/-. 5.3 Ground No. 4:- Addition Of Rs. 1,14,90,000/- u/s 68 5.3.1 Assessing officer has added the amount of Rs. 1,14,90,000/- by invoking the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIA vs. M/S AJAY REALCON PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly