RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

property. Moreover, assessee had the total cash in hand upto July was Rs. 50,000/-(opening cash in hand Rs. NIL/- and cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/-) whereas the total cash paid by the assessee upto July was Rs. 2,28,900. How can assessee deposit Rs.2,05,000/-upto July whereas assessee has made more expanse in cash than

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

property. Moreover, assessee had the total cash in hand upto July was Rs. 50,000/-(opening cash in hand Rs. NIL/- and cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/-) whereas the total cash paid by the assessee upto July was Rs. 2,28,900. How can assessee deposit Rs.2,05,000/-upto July whereas assessee has made more expanse in cash than

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

property. Moreover, assessee had the total cash in hand upto July was Rs. 50,000/-(opening cash in hand Rs. NIL/- and cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/-) whereas the total cash paid by the assessee upto July was Rs. 2,28,900. How can assessee deposit Rs.2,05,000/-upto July whereas assessee has made more expanse in cash than

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

property. Moreover, assessee had the total cash in hand upto July was Rs. 50,000/-(opening cash in hand Rs. NIL/- and cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/-) whereas the total cash paid by the assessee upto July was Rs. 2,28,900. How can assessee deposit Rs.2,05,000/-upto July whereas assessee has made more expanse in cash than

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

property. Moreover, assessee had the total cash in hand upto July was Rs. 50,000/-(opening cash in hand Rs. NIL/- and cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/-) whereas the total cash paid by the assessee upto July was Rs. 2,28,900. How can assessee deposit Rs.2,05,000/-upto July whereas assessee has made more expanse in cash than

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

unexplained cash credits. The AO also noted that M/s Nageshwar Investment Ltd. was a group concern of the assessee. During the course of proceedings u/s 153A, it has been the assessee’s contention that no incriminating material Page 9 was found during the course of the search. However, the AO made an addition

THAPAR HOMES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act:- The AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:- “2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s Mare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not paying any interest on the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMER LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act:- The AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:- “2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s Mare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not paying any interest on the said

THAPAR HOMES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act:- The AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:- “2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s Mare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not paying any interest on the said

THAPAR HOMES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act:- The AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:- “2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s Mare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not paying any interest on the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMES LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 570, 571 & 41 /िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10)

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act:- The AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:- “2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s Mare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not paying any interest on the said

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

property was lying with him till the time of payment made by the assessee which was totally ignored by the Ld. Assessing officer. Since both the person(s) from whom amount received by the assessee has confirmed on oath and during personal deposition also, No amount can be considered as unexplained and can be treated as Income of the assessee

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

cash credits. The amount under question is sale proceeds„ Once a particular amount is already offered for taxation, the same cannot be considered as ITBA/APL/S/250/2024æ25/1074980455(1 8 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The pre-dominant clement for making addition u/s 68 of the Act is the onus casted upon

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

cash credits. The amount under question is sale proceeds„ Once a particular amount is already offered for taxation, the same cannot be considered as ITBA/APL/S/250/2024æ25/1074980455(1 8 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The pre-dominant clement for making addition u/s 68 of the Act is the onus casted upon

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s.68 of\nthe Act:-\nThe AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:-\n“2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s\nMare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not\npaying any interest on the said

THAPAR HOMES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s.68 of\nthe Act:-\nThe AO had made addition of the aforesaid amount observing as under:-\n“2. The assessee company has declared as taken a loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from M/s\nMare Softwares Development Pvt. Ltd. on 17.02.2006. The assessee company is not\npaying any interest on the said

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

property, it cannot be treated as cash credits and thus provision of section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, the AO cannot make the addition of this amount as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the act. However, discharged the burden casted upon it as discussed above, the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the company M/s Hallow Securities

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

property, it cannot be treated as cash credits and thus provision of section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, the AO cannot make the addition of this amount as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the act. However, discharged the burden casted upon it as discussed above, the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the company M/s Hallow Securities