JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act needed to be sustained is untenable, in view of the following finding recorded by the Tribunal, in this behalf. None of these findings have been assailed in the appeal preferred by the revenue. “……The A.O. in A.Y. 2012-2013 has referred to statement of Shri Manoj Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders whose statement was recorded

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act needed to be sustained is untenable, in view of the following finding recorded by the Tribunal, in this behalf. None of these findings have been assailed in the appeal preferred by the revenue. “……The A.O. in A.Y. 2012-2013 has referred to statement of Shri Manoj Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders whose statement was recorded

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act needed to be sustained is untenable, in view of the following finding recorded by the Tribunal, in this behalf. None of these findings have been assailed in the appeal preferred by the revenue. “……The A.O. in A.Y. 2012-2013 has referred to statement of Shri Manoj Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Mahalaxmi Traders whose statement was recorded

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 upheld. (Krishan Kumar Jhamb Vs ITO & Anr (P&H) 17 DTR 249). (xii) Hon. Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 , at pages 545-547 made a reference to the test of human probabilities stating that “this raises the question whether the apparent can be considered as real. As laid down

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIA vs. M/S AJAY REALCON PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE RESIDENCY PVT. LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS COMMUNIQUE MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Ld. AO order. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Toby Delhi 2009 [2010] 324 ITR 338 (Delhi) Consultants High Court (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (ii) Mangilal Madras 2009 [2009] 315 ITR 105

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, the AO has shifted the onus back on the appellant by confronting the adverse findings. Therefore, the appellant has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act to explain the transaction. The Investigation Wing has conducted detailed enquiries, made analysis of the seized / impounded documents and made analysis

KULBHUSHAN SAHTANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-51(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kulbhushan Sahtani, Vs Ito, 2525/7, Bedanpura, Ward-51(5), Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. New Delhi Pan-Bknps5543L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K.Goyal, Ar & Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2025 Order

68 of the Act and further invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against this order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

68 in the hands of the assessee. However, rejecting the entire submissions of the assessee, the Ld.PCIT did not agree with the genuineness of transactions, identity and creditworthiness of the investors. 7. The main points raised by the Ld.PCIT challenging the assessment order dated 5.4.2016 are: a) That the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors were not verified

RIVET HEALTH CLUB PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(2), FARIDABAD

section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained\nshare premium and share capital. As seen from the CIT(A) has\nsustained addition u/s 68 in respect of following parties:\nName\nof Number\nshareholder shares\nof Value\nof Share\nshares\n@premium\nRs.10\nper @Rs.30\nper\nshare\nshare\nM/s Goodluck 62500\nIndustries

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

105, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that when unsecured loans were paid back in subsequent years, it shows that these were genuine loans taken by the assessee. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has fulfilled the three ingredients of section 68