CIT vs. JH FINVEST PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies. The AO, according to him, the reading of these reasons clearly indicated that the AO had not applied his own mind to the issue or carried out any incumbent verification before issuing the notice. 63, we find this contention of the assessee to be correct. in Para 2, the Ao has reproduced the particulars

CIT vs. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies. The AO, according to him, the reading of these reasons clearly indicated that the AO had not applied his own mind to the issue or carried out any incumbent verification before issuing the notice. 63, we find this contention of the assessee to be correct. in Para 2, the Ao has reproduced the particulars

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHAM MOHAN PVT LTD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies. The AO, according to him, the reading of these reasons clearly indicated that the AO had not applied his own mind to the issue or carried out any incumbent verification before issuing the notice. 63, we find this contention of the assessee to be correct. in Para 2, the Ao has reproduced the particulars

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY FOILS P.LTD.

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies. The AO, according to him, the reading of these reasons clearly indicated that the AO had not applied his own mind to the issue or carried out any incumbent verification before issuing the notice. 63, we find this contention of the assessee to be correct. in Para 2, the Ao has reproduced the particulars

INFOMEDIARY INDIA PVT LTD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies. The AO, according to him, the reading of these reasons clearly indicated that the AO had not applied his own mind to the issue or carried out any incumbent verification before issuing the notice. 63, we find this contention of the assessee to be correct. in Para 2, the Ao has reproduced the particulars

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs.83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs.83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs.83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs.83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs.83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the I T Act, 1961. 10.1.14 In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I do not agree with the decision of the Assessing Officer regarding taxing the total turnover of entries amounting to Rs.83,71,29,511/- as unexplained cash credit after accepting the appellant to be the entry operator. Since the beneficiaries are identified, the amounts

M/S GRAND SLAM PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

bogus/accommodation entries. The decision in Sarthak Securities Company Private Limited (supra) was elucidated and explained.” 3.14 In a recent decision, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Paramount Communication Private Limited [2017] 392 ITR 444 (Del) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted the reasons recorded as under: “ ………………... The relevant reasons furnished in respect of each assessment

M/S. SHREE BALKISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

bogus/accommodation entries in the form of share capital by entry provider S.K Jain through his groups of companies amounting to Rs.55,00,000/ as per detail mentioned in the assessment order. On the basis of the various information gathered during the course of the search/ post search enquires it was found that the Assessee Company has introduced

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

entry is concerned, he submitted that it is an estimated addition and there is no basis or material or information based on which such addition could have been made. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that

P.T. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

entries in the grab of share capital / share application money /loan /share premium etc. Perusal/examination of report / documents /records show that the entire transactions are lack ingredients of genuineness of transactions. identity of directors of company and creditworthiness within meaning of provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It is therefore, held that the amount introduced as share capital! share

P.T. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

entries in the grab of share capital / share application money /loan /share premium etc. Perusal/examination of report / documents /records show that the entire transactions are lack ingredients of genuineness of transactions. identity of directors of company and creditworthiness within meaning of provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It is therefore, held that the amount introduced as share capital! share

SASTVIJAY INVESTMENT & CONSULTANCY SERVICES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies. The name of the assessee figures as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions given by the Directorate after making the necessary enquiries. In the said information, it has been inter-alia reported as under: "Entries are broadly taken for two purposes: 1. To plough back unaccounted black money for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI vs. SANJEEV AGRAWAL HUF, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

68, 69 and 69.4 to 69D though he has stated to apply tax rate as per section 115BBE. 8.6.4. If the inference is drawn that Id. AO has made a disallowance of claim of exemption by the assessee u/s 10(38), then, first and foremost, his statement of applying the rate of 60% under section 115BBE does not hold good