BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

974 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi974Mumbai907Jaipur371Ahmedabad331Hyderabad224Chennai208Kolkata176Pune163Bangalore157Indore147Surat109Rajkot106Chandigarh95Amritsar76Visakhapatnam55Cochin53Nagpur46Agra38Lucknow37Allahabad36Calcutta35Raipur30Jabalpur30Karnataka24Guwahati22Cuttack20Patna19Jodhpur15Kerala14Varanasi9Dehradun4Ranchi2Telangana2Rajasthan1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79Section 271(1)(c)61Penalty59Section 6854Section 14851Section 14749Section 153A39Section 14439Cash Deposit39Section 143(3)

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 131Section 68Section 801CSection 80I

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately. Since on one hand, the deduction u/s 80IC has been separately disallowed and on the other hand, the entire sales receipts of the assessee have been found to be bogus and have been added to the income of the assessee u/s

Showing 1–20 of 974 · Page 1 of 49

...
38
Natural Justice22
Section 142(1)21

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

271(l)(c) of the Act was not leviable. We, therefore, by considering the peculiar facts of this case as discussed hereinabove delete the penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). As a result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 2nd March, 2016. ” Page 7 of 25 ITA-857/Del/2016

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3310/DEL/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

deposits also. This is what the Tribunal says: ―5.1 Coming to penalty u/s 271-E, though the penalty is technically different, as mentioned above, but the ingredients of reasonable cause remain by and large the same. The assessee’s business will have a small fraction of cash

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 50C

u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, the Bench pronounced that since the assessee had not suppressed any material fact from the notice of the A.O. in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income is not appropriate. Copy of judgment of Bhavya Anant

PARVEEN GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

ITA 1266/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

cash deposits in the bank account becomes unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A. Since the amount is credited into the books of the assessee the amount is liable to be added u/s 68 also. The assessee failed to establish explain the source of other deposits also. Therefore the assessee’s explanation tor source of deposits

PARVEEN GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

ITA 1265/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

cash deposits in the bank account becomes unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A. Since the amount is credited into the books of the assessee the amount is liable to be added u/s 68 also. The assessee failed to establish explain the source of other deposits also. Therefore the assessee’s explanation tor source of deposits

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 616/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 611/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 615/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 617/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 612/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 613/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 614/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

deposits in cash, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging cash transactions above a certain threshold. Moreover, the imposition of penalties ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 under Sections 27ID and 27IE is contingent upon the contravention of specific statutory provisions governing cash transactions. These penalties are not contingent upon the outcomes of assessments or reassessments conducted pursuant to Section 153A.Therefore, even

M/S VEE GEE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5050/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Deposit Rs.2,52,648/- 4 Income Surrendered Rs.69,00,000/- 5 Cash seized from Residence of Sh. R.K. Gupta and Sh. Rajesh Gupta Rs.32,50,000/- 6 Cash payment to Bio Made agency Rs.99,000/- 7 Other surrender Rs.38,28,352/- Total 2,47,50,000/- 11. Referring to the copy of acknowledgement of the income-tax return, copy

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Cash Flow Statement, dealt with by this report, comply with the Accounting .Standard referred to in sub-section (3C) of section 211 of The Companies Act., 1956. d) In Tax Audit Report also there is a complete and full disclosure vide point No. 13(e) of Form 3CD wherein against the particulars of amount not credited to Profit & Loss Account

ITO, GURGAON vs. SH. YOGESH KATARIA, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3385/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Shobhit Tiwari, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposits has been deleted by me in the aforesaid order, there is no question of imposition of penalty in respect of the aforesaid addition made by the A.O in his order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. Hence penalty of Rs. 10,99,608/- imposed u/s 271

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3593/DEL/2025[A.Y. 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269TSection 270ASection 271ESection 69ASection 80G

cash unless it is established that moneys moved from one person to another person, which is in the nature of loans or deposits, that the transaction of adjusting minimum guarantee amount with security deposit is genuine and accordingly the 7 Atma Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. purpose for which the enactment of section 269SS and 269T was introduced has no application

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5654/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

cash deposits in his bank accounts, the assessee did not care to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act. It is also noteworthy that the assessee did file his return of income only after a notice under Section 148 of the Act, which was issued to him. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is having

DAIRY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE - 7(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjit Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

deposits to the extent of Rs.42,4,64,725/- were explained by cash sales, the balance i.e., Rs.53,51 ,020/- was not explained. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts holding that the appellant had not given verifiable documentary evidence in support of its claim of cash incoming, although the appellant had furnished sufficient