M/S L.T. FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charydcit Vs. L.T. Foods Ltd., Central Circle-19, Unit No. 134, First Floor, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Rectangle-I, Saket District Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi. New Delhi.

11A) of the Act either in respect of the activities conducted by the assessee to meet the demand of the section, namely, deriving income from the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains or for non-compliance with the conditions depleted under section 80IB (2) of the Act. We do not find anything illegality

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)

Section 68 is applicable w.e.f 01.04.2013 and is applicable only where the shareholder is a resident in India and not when the shareholder is a non-resident. The relevant observation of the Court are as under: “2.31 We also observed that the increase in share capital was not on account of any new shareholders being brought in, rather

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 are applicable in respect of income derived from the property held for charitable purposes. Whereas, in the facts of the case it has been found that these unexplained sums in the shape of unexplained unsecured loans though are income of the appellant but the same are not in the nature „income derived‟ from the property held

LT FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

68,886 Reimbursement of Labour Charges of Paddy Season Purchase for Loading/Unloading paid by party on behalf of assessee to various labour contractors in mandi - Amount paid is below taxable limit 3. 8,38,180 Payment was made to non-resident as Market Development Charges market development charges. No income deemed to accrue or arise in India as per section

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

68 (Del)]. 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 14. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT (Appeals) we observe that there is no dispute that

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

68 (Del)]. 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 14. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. On perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT (Appeals) we observe that there is no dispute that

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 68 has been found to be correct. We have also noted that the observation of ld. CIT(A) regarding failure of the ld. AO to bring on record any evidence to support cash expenditure on repair and maintenance of building by the assessee, is also correct. Thus, we have noted that the order

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 68 has been found to be correct. We have also noted that the observation of ld. CIT(A) regarding failure of the ld. AO to bring on record any evidence to support cash expenditure on repair and maintenance of building by the assessee, is also correct. Thus, we have noted that the order

ACIT CIRCLE-15(1), NEW DELHI vs. LTC COMMERCIAL COMPANY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

Section 80IB (11A) observed that, three conditions are required to be fulfilled for availing deduction and not only storage and transportation of food grains. All the three conditions should be integrated with each other. He further observed that the profit and loss account of the assessee reflected that out of total receipt of Rs. 38,00,15,441/- from

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11A(1) of the Act and as to why the duty amount of Rs. 6,73,376/- paid by them during investigation should not be appreciated against this liability. Also, as to why they should not be penalized under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Rule 25 of the Rules and Section 11AC

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11A(1) of the Act and as to why the duty amount of Rs. 6,73,376/- paid by them during investigation should not be appreciated against this liability. Also, as to why they should not be penalized under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Rule 25 of the Rules and Section 11AC

GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC vs. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI - I

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

11A of the Companies Act but all other provisions of law. That this provision was not given retrospective effect, in this Court's opinion, further strengthens the petitioner's submissions. 11. In view of these prima facie reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned demand to the tune it seeks to recover levy under Section 115QA

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. DLF UTILITIES LTD.

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

11A is “fraud”, “collusion”, “wilful mis- statement”, “suppression of facts” or “contravention of any of the provisions.....with intent to evade payment....” It was submitted that the use of such expressions has, in the past, in the decisions of the Supreme Court, been construed as not authorizing the authorities to invoke the extended period for mere omission to register

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT – A income from the above disallowances and allow the appeal of the assessee to these extent

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,160/- when there is no seized material pertaining to this year. The additions made are unjust, unlawful, bad in law, without jurisdiction and are also highly excessive. Disallowance of payment in Contravention of Section 40A(3) 10. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. and subsequently

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. GOVERDHAN TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

11A, C.R. BLDG.,\nI.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI\n(APPELLANT)\nVS.\nGOVERDHAN TRANSPORT\nCOMPANY PVT. LTD.,\nB/2, TYAGI VIHAR,\nNAGLOI, DELHI – 41\n(PAN: AADCG0663R)\n(RESPONDENT)\nASSESSEE BY: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Sh. Pranshu Singhal,\nAdv., Ms. Mani Jain, Adv. & Sh. Tanishq\nAhuja, Adv.\nREVENUE BY: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR.\nDate of Hearing : 24.02.2026\nDate of Order

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

68,000 SALES AND TECH. 12/16/2013 5.50.000 PENTAL STEEL INDIA - FUNDS TRF. FUNDS TRF. 12/16/2013 13,50,000 CASH SHIFTED TO ARIHANTA IND. ON 16-12-2013 - CASH SHIFTED TO ARIHANTA IND. ON AKSHRA SALES- FUNDS TRF. 12/16/2013 6,00,000 RTGS - Rs. 24,79,050 VAANI TRADING CO.- FUNDS TRF. FUNDS TRF. IMPERIAL TRADERS- FUNDS TRF. FUNDS TRF. 1/20/2014

DCIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd,B- Central Circle-15, 393, Zakir Nagar So, South East Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi-1100025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

Section 68 of the income tax Act, 1961. In view of these facts and the whole amount of Rs. 17,95,00,000/- received as accommodation entries is treated unexplained credits in the books of account of the assessee company and is being added to the income of the assessee as assessee's income from undisclosed sources u/s 68

M/S MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act. The SCN also proposed to levy interest and penalty from the Assessee as well as its directors/officials. 61. Mr. Ganesh explained that with a view to avoiding the coercive steps as proposed in the SCN, the Assessee, on advice, filed an application before the concerned Settlement Commission praying for grant

ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI vs. PNC RAJASTHAN HIGHWAYS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, relevant grounds of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section of NH-11A extension in the state of Rajasthan under NHDP Phase IV on Hybrid Annuity Mode. The company filed the return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 29/12/2020 declaring total loss at Rs. 24,33,09,074/-, the income was assessed u/s 143(3) at assessed income of Rs. 2,20,34,35,833/- after