ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

5*100/ *100 7 2015-16 6445450 7370159 9247089 2016-17 1123000 1507290 4558750 21250000 2433750 18.22 21060615 11.56 00 28 0 0 1 The cash deposited by the appellant after demonetization is just 18.22% of the cash deposited before demonetization. The appellant had made cash sales even after demonetization and deposited huge cash in new currency

OM GANPATI MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act and enhanced the taxable income towards aforesaid cash deposits. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however was also not convinced by the explanation offered towards source of cash deposits by the assessee. The CIT(A) thus declined to interfere with the order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

5 of the PMLA, the impugned judgment indicates that the learned Single Judge has proceeded, at more than one point, on the premise that the “proceeds of crime”, in the present case, were the amounts received by Alka Rajvansh as director of the respondent-company, and that the subject property was been acquired using the proceeds of crime. Proceeding from

J S EXIM PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

5 , 4 0 , 0 8 , 9 7 , 8 0 , 0 1 3 , 3 3 , 0 0 , 0 - 1 3 , 3 3 , 0 0 , 0 0 0 - 0 0 7 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.T.A. No.854/Del/2020 11 14. A perusal of tabulation suggests that the all loans taken have been either repaid in the same financial year

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

5 as a stand-alone provision in respect of a purported stand-alone event (that of provisional attachment). This, to our mind, does not appear to be the intent or the structure of the PMLA architecture. This then divorces the second step, which in our opinion is the necessary concomitant to the first step of ―provisional attachment‖, namely the confirmation

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

1) of Section 144B; b) addition under section 68 of the Act has been made without even giving an opportunity by issuing a show cause notice and ; (c) no personal hearing was granted despite petitioner requesting for the same. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the said assessment order passed in violation of section 144B

MOHD UMEED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 69A is without any basis and needs to be deleted. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the fact that it was due to government's demonetization policy that the assessee had to deposit the entire cash lying with it in denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERSTAR AGENCY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA STEEL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINTEX CONSUMERS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5,22,890 D Not challenged employee benefit expenses 3. Delight Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2014-15 143(3) - Advance – section 68 37,70,00,000 D R 4. Jawahar Credit & Holdings Pvt. 2012-13 143(3) Ltd. 73,50,00,000 D R - Share Capital – section 68 1