ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 of the Income-tax Act would not be attracted to the present case. The above view receives support from Laxmi Narain Gupta v. CIT [1980] 124

ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 68 of the Income-tax Act would not be attracted to the present case. The above view receives support from Laxmi Narain Gupta v. CIT [1980] 124

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credits – Assessment year 1976- 77 – Partners of assessee-firm were members of one ‘J’ group running several businesses and industries – Accounts of assessee-firm showed that it had borrowed certain amount from GB, a proprietary concern of one of its partners JM, which was invested in purchase of shares

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

section 68 is the same as in the case of share capital. The Ld. DR submitted that though there is no adverse statement in respect of the loan taken by the assessee from the various lenders but the onus is upon assessee which he has failed to discharge. The Ld. DR place reliance on the order of the Supreme

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

section 68 is the same as in the case of share capital. The Ld. DR submitted that though there is no adverse statement in respect of the loan taken by the assessee from the various lenders but the onus is upon assessee which he has failed to discharge. The Ld. DR place reliance on the order of the Supreme

RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

124 of the Act, then transfer order u/s 127 is mandatory, without which the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer cannot be conferred to pass any order. If such a statutory procedure is not followed then there would be a chaos where any Assessing Officer can pass order in the case of any assessee even when he does not have

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 153A r.w.s 153C and 149(1) are not satisfied. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer had provided the new material directly in assessment order without confronting the same to the respondent company

M/S. LAIRY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

68 SOT 449. 122 In view of the foregoing discussion, it is most respectfully submitted that preconditions for issuance of notice Section 153C of the said Act have not been satisfied in the instant case, as no document belonging to the assessee - appellant have been found from the premises of searched person i.e. Minda Group and consequently, the notice

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)

124 [Punjab & Haryana]; & ITA No. 4762/Del.2024 & CO No.27/Del/2025 h. Manoj Aggarwal [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) (SB), the Hon'ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT on 25.07.2008 has held that wrong quoting of section is not fatal to the proceedings, and has preferred substance over form: "26. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee before us was that

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 52(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NOVEL INFRATECH, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

68 of the Act in the sum of ₹7,86,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee firm had raised unsecured loans aggregating to ₹7.86 crores from the following parties as under: – Name, address Loan