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

unexplained cash credits. 2. Bank statement of appellant reveals that amounts of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received on transfer from joint account of Dalpat Singh and Singh. Further perusal of these accounts shown that these accounts were sourced from cash deposits in these accounts. The IT profiling clearly suggest that financials

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

unexplained cash credits. 2. Bank statement of appellant reveals that amounts of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received on transfer from joint account of Dalpat Singh and Singh. Further perusal of these accounts shown that these accounts were sourced from cash deposits in these accounts. The IT profiling clearly suggest that financials

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

unexplained cash credits. 2. Bank statement of appellant reveals that amounts of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received on transfer from joint account of Dalpat Singh and Singh. Further perusal of these accounts shown that these accounts were sourced from cash deposits in these accounts. The IT profiling clearly suggest that financials

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

unexplained cash credits. 2. Bank statement of appellant reveals that amounts of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received on transfer from joint account of Dalpat Singh and Singh. Further perusal of these accounts shown that these accounts were sourced from cash deposits in these accounts. The IT profiling clearly suggest that financials

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

unexplained cash credits. 2. Bank statement of appellant reveals that amounts of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- has been received on transfer from joint account of Dalpat Singh and Singh. Further perusal of these accounts shown that these accounts were sourced from cash deposits in these accounts. The IT profiling clearly suggest that financials

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 credit on account of sale of shares of M/s Quest Financial Services Ltd., without appreciating the fact that the transaction of sale of shares is not genuine but an arranged deal managed by the assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course

M/S. BEST REALTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST CITY REALTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST CITY PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST CITY REALTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST CITY PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST CITY DEVELOPERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST CITY DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST REALTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned

M/S. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

credit at the first point should be made. Therefore, the contention of the learned CIT-DR, that Shri Tarun Goyal and his group companies are entry provider, is without any basis and has been impliedly disapproved by the ITAT. He further stated that the assessee was never allowed the opportunity for cross-examination. In fact, during the remand proceedings, learned