ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

b) Cash sales are supported by the audited books of account, invoices, suffered from VAT, VAT returns, Quantitative Stock tally and therefore, cannot be disregarded. c) Treatment of sales as unexplained cash credit tantamount to disregarding the audited accounts, if sales is disregarded, it must be followed by rejection of the books of account under section

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

b) of sub-section (1) to section 144B,prior to passing of the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act; no opportunity of personal hearing (through video conferencing) was allowed to the assessee by the assessing officer prior to completion of assessment; 7 the final assessment order has been passed by the jurisdictional assessing officer, viz., Assistant

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

b) the trust or institution has not complied with the requirement of any other law,\nas referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1), and the order,\ndirection or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such non-\ncompliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality,\nthen, the Principal Commissioner

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has erred on facts and in law in restoring the matter to the Assessment Officer and not allowing

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has erred on facts and in law in restoring the matter to the Assessment Officer and not allowing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has erred on facts and in law in restoring the matter to the Assessment Officer and not allowing

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

7. That the disallowance of Rs. 1,76,16,528/- is illegal and bad in law and the CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the same. 8. That the CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has erred on facts and in law in restoring the matter to the Assessment Officer and not allowing

SURENDER KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1045/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Surender Kumar, Vs Adit, M Sahu & Associates, Ca, House No. Cpc, 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Near Union Bangalore Bank Of India, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agupk6911C Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2022

section 143(1)(a)(iv) which talks about disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken in to account in computing total income in the return without appreciating the fact that in the tax audit report at clause 20(b) reporting was made relating to contributions received from employees for various funds as referred u/s 36(1

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

b) of sub-section (1) of section\n12A, section 444B, section 44DA, section 50B, section\n80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section\n80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, section 115JB or\nsection115VW or to give a notice under clause (a) of\nsub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, he shall furnish\nthe same electronically

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

7), serial number 21(f)- any sum paid by the assessee as an employer not allowable under section 40A(9), serial number 21(h) amount of deduction inadmissible in terms of section 14A etc, there is a specific requirement that the auditor has to mention whether the expenditure is admissible/allowable or not. However, so far as section 36(1

FARIDABAD SERVICE STATION,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-30(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

HANS RUBBER & SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MEERUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

7 AY: 2019-20 the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed the same under Section 43B of Act 1961. He also disallowed the said amount of Rs. 1,93,55,580/- from expenses claimed by Assessee for the A.Y. in question i.e. 200506 as per provisions under Section 43B. Dissatisfied with assessment order, Assessee preferred

ASHIRWAD CARBONICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-3(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

UNITED COFFEE HOUSE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. United Coffee House, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-15, Connaught Place, Ward-52(4), Delhi Delhi Pan :Aaafu1260G (Appellant) (Respondent)

7 AY: 2019-20 the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed the same under Section 43B of Act 1961. He also disallowed the said amount of Rs. 1,93,55,580/- from expenses claimed by Assessee for the A.Y. in question i.e. 200506 as per provisions under Section 43B. Dissatisfied with assessment order, Assessee preferred

VHS ENTERPRISES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

VHS ENTERPRISES ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section

PUSHPA SHARMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

7 AY: 2018-19 a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs. 1,93,55,580/being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund

RAMA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

7 AY: 2018-19 a short fall of Rs. 24,89,41,130/-. This amount of short fall was treated by Assessing Officer as income of Assessee vide Section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs. 1,93,55,580/being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund

FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Flying Fabrication, Vs. Income Tax Officer, The Tax Chambers Advocates Ward-1(4) & Legal Advisors, C-177, Gurgaon Defence Colony, Lgf, New Delhi Pan :Aadff9825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by Assessing Officer as just and proper.” 9. Similarly, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd. 410 ITR 417 held that the amounts were not allowable u/s 36(1)(va). The relevant portion is as under: "7. The issue here concerns the interplay of Section