O.K. AUTO COMPONENTS PVT LTD,HARYANA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S O.K. Auto Components Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, (P) Ltd., Haryana A-131, Sgm Nagar, Faridabad Haryana – 121001 (Pan: Aaac05770E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained investment. Notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued and duly served. In response to the same, the assessee had not filed any return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice. In response to the same, the assessee has submitted partially details. AO completed the assessment

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5748/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 S. N. Arora/Sapra, Vs Income Tax Officer, H-1481, 1St Floor, C.R. Park, Ward-23(2), New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arqps5550E Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ratan Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.10.2021

reassessment is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of 2 S. N. Arora/Sapra Rs. 56 lakhs as unexplained investment

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge his burden it is he who has to lead positive evidence and the mere fact there

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge his burden it is he who has to lead positive evidence and the mere fact there

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge his burden it is he who has to lead positive evidence and the mere fact there

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

unexplained investments can be made as deemed income, if it established that assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books maintained by the assessee. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who makes allegation and to discharge his burden it is he who has to lead positive evidence and the mere fact there

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

KUSUM LATA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment in land were made based on the information collected post search. In this regard, he brought to our notice the various discussions from the assessment order and he submitted that all the above said information were collected by the Assessing officer only during post search operations and collected from the return of income filed by the assessee

CHAWLA JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment, whereas u/s 133A of the Act, the income tax authorities are empowered to make an inventory of the stock checked or verified by him and there is no provision enabling the income tax authority conducting the survey to call for valuation. All the additions sustained by the Ld.CIT (A) are based on the value determined by the valuer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. PARAS JAIN, DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Paras Jain Ward – 58(7) 164-B, Gali No. - 5 Delhi Azad Nagar, East Delhi

unexplained investment in the reassessment proceedings and adding the same by invoking section 69 of the IT Act is not maintainable

VIJAY SADWAL,FARIDABAD HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Paras Jain Ward – 58(7) 164-B, Gali No. - 5 Delhi Azad Nagar, East Delhi

unexplained investment in the reassessment proceedings and adding the same by invoking section 69 of the IT Act is not maintainable

PARMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

unexplained investment. 17. The AO also made an addition of Rs.1,12,880/- in AY 2007-08 on the assumption that the assessee would have earned interest at the rate of 4% in respect of the last credit balance in the account. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before

PARMINDER SINGH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

unexplained investment. 17. The AO also made an addition of Rs.1,12,880/- in AY 2007-08 on the assumption that the assessee would have earned interest at the rate of 4% in respect of the last credit balance in the account. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

unexplained investment. 17. The AO also made an addition of Rs.1,12,880/- in AY 2007-08 on the assumption that the assessee would have earned interest at the rate of 4% in respect of the last credit balance in the account. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PARMINDER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

unexplained investment. 17. The AO also made an addition of Rs.1,12,880/- in AY 2007-08 on the assumption that the assessee would have earned interest at the rate of 4% in respect of the last credit balance in the account. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before