ACIT, DELHI vs. GRAND ESTATE LLP, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIMBUS PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

section 68 of the IT Act. We find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition so made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed the requisite details such as copy of the bank account, copy of the Income-tax returns, copy of confirmations, details of allotment of shares

NIMBUS PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

section 68 of the IT Act. We find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition so made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed the requisite details such as copy of the bank account, copy of the Income-tax returns, copy of confirmations, details of allotment of shares