DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TEPE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961." 3. "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that neither the assessee could produce the parties nor did they attend the proceedings in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 requiring personal deposition.” Cash Credits u/s 68: Facts taken from the order

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

68)\n\n3.\nRegarding Self Contradictory Findings of the Assessing Officer\nAddition made by AO is not tenable as Ld. AO himself has accepted that out of\n1235 Lakhs received from ANM Fincap Rs.1035 Lakhs is not bogus and out of\n965 Lakhs received from RMP Holdings 800 Lakhs is not bogus. (Page 46, Para

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MADHAV BHAGERIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

68 of the Act towards\nunsecured loans and also u/s 69C of the Act towards the alleged\npayment of commission. The relevant observations as made in para\n14 to 41 of the said order are reproduced as under:\n\n14.Heard both the parties and perused the material available on\nrecord. From the perusal of the order

SMT ARTI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Arti Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Kunal Aggarwal & Ward-3(3), Gurgaon Associates, 2Nd Floor Jmd Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Bexps5432Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act. In support of the contention, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Pardeep Publications (2010) 130

LOKENATH INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

130 taxmann.com 9 (Madras) -Where addition under section 68 was made to income of assessee on ground that share

MR. SURINDER MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

section 68 of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed. Before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee submitted that non-filing of confirmation of the creditors alone should not be the ground for addition. To substantiate the genuineness of transactions, the assessee produced before the Ld. CIT(A) copy of purchase bills; copy of ledger accounts and copy

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 41 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 41 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 41 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 41 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 41 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 68 of the Act in their hands does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 41 5.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that Assessing Officer was not right in taxing the total turnover

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. ANIMATE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 153A r.w.s 153C and 149(1) are not satisfied. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition also on the ground that the alleged Whatsapp messages relied upon by Assessing Officer is totally unrelated and irrelevant to the respondent

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CICLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 153A r.w.s 153C and 149(1) are not satisfied. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition also on the ground that the alleged Whatsapp messages relied upon by Assessing Officer is totally unrelated and irrelevant to the respondent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI vs. SH BASANT JAIN, DELHI

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

section 115BBE of the Act.\n\n4. Further he observed that assessee has taken advances from various persons\nduring the year under consideration and assessee was asked to submit\ncomplete details. In response, assessee furnished a list wherein only name\nand amount were disclosed. No other details were furnished and he came to\nthe conclusion that assessee failed

ACIT, DLEHI vs. GRAND ESTATES LLP, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4) of the Act cannot be treated as "as evidence" when statement u/s 132(4) made while confronting with incriminating material gathered during the search operations. 8. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer should have conducted further enquiry to find about the source of fund of the entry operator, without appreciating that

ACIT, DELHI vs. GRAND ESTATES LLP, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4) of the Act cannot be treated as "as evidence" when statement u/s 132(4) made while confronting with incriminating material gathered during the search operations. 8. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer should have conducted further enquiry to find about the source of fund of the entry operator, without appreciating that

OM PRAKASH TANTIA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4) of the Act cannot be treated as "as evidence" when statement u/s 132(4) made while confronting with incriminating material gathered during the search operations. 8. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer should have conducted further enquiry to find about the source of fund of the entry operator, without appreciating that