DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

cash deposited during the demonetization period as arising out of unexplained sources(as against the accepted position in the past andthe subsequent periods) is to somehow trigger the provisions of section 115BBE read with section 68

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

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

cash credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. 6. That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited

ZIA RATHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-44(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmrs. Zia Rathi, Income Tax Officer, 274, Dda Flats, Sector-1A, Ward-44(3), Dwarka Nasirpur, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Bsvpr9218M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.02.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 15/11146/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S Veezee Traders Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Pvc Coated Imported Fabric. The Zia Rathi Vs. Ito

68 on account of cash deposit in SBN during the demonetization into bank by making following observations: Section 68 of the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. NAGPAL FABRICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

deposits under section 68 It was seen that assessee had maintained regular books of account which was subject to audit and had produced entire sale bills, stock register and purchases and also quantitative tally of sales and corresponding stock Addition under section 68 on account of cash

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-29 , NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE INDIA TRADE CENTER PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2437/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18)

deposits made by the assessee during assessment proceedings but no documentary evidences relating to the purposes of such cash in hand i.e. expenses such as wages etc was filed by the assessee, done in FY 2017-18, if any, relating to the AY 2016-17 or in any of the earlier AY/AYs. 3. Whether on the facts

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -29, NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE NEW CHNADIGARH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2437/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18)

deposits made by the assessee during assessment proceedings but no documentary evidences relating to the purposes of such cash in hand i.e. expenses such as wages etc was filed by the assessee, done in FY 2017-18, if any, relating to the AY 2016-17 or in any of the earlier AY/AYs. 3. Whether on the facts

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposited in new currency notes amounting to Rs.63.41 crores, represented cash sales made by the assessee. Thus, in sum, the CIT(A) scaled down the addition made under Section 68

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposited in new currency notes amounting to Rs.63.41 crores, represented cash sales made by the assessee. Thus, in sum, the CIT(A) scaled down the addition made under Section 68

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposited in new currency notes amounting to Rs.63.41 crores, represented cash sales made by the assessee. Thus, in sum, the CIT(A) scaled down the addition made under Section 68

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

deposited in new currency notes amounting to Rs.63.41 crores, represented cash sales made by the assessee. Thus, in sum, the CIT(A) scaled down the addition made under Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. SATISH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

68 of the Act after considering the factual matrix, including the consistent trend of cash deposits, acceptance of books of accounts, and absence of any adverse finding regarding sales, purchases, or profit margins. The cash deposits were clearly explained as arising from regular business sales, and merely accepting old currency notes post-demonetization does not invoke section

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

deposits in the bank account of the appellant company during the period of demonetization and brought to tax under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act 2 1.1 That, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer having accepted the cash