DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. LUXMAN BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R Co No.93/Del/2018 (Ita No.817/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Lumax Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2184R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd November, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010- 11. Co No.93/Del/2018 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

132(4) and section 131 of the IT Act, 1961 made addition of Rs.1,65,00,000/- on account of unexplained share capital and share application money in the hands of the assessee u/s 68

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 132(4) of the Act, without any reference to any material found during the course of search could not be the sole basis for making any addition. 51. The aforesaid principle of law has also been recognized by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its Instruction No. F no. 286/2/2003- IT (Inv) dated 10.03.2003 (Refer pages

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

132 of the Act was conducted on 09/10/2014 at various premises of the assessee along with premises of the Directors etc. In view of search action, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were commenced by way of issue of notice dated 15/12/2015. The assessee filed return of income on 17/01/2016 declaring nil income. The assessment under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

132 of the Act was conducted on 09/10/2014 at various premises of the assessee along with premises of the Directors etc. In view of search action, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were commenced by way of issue of notice dated 15/12/2015. The assessee filed return of income on 17/01/2016 declaring nil income. The assessment under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable

KUBER PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment by the Ld. AO and in making addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- despite the fact that the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under section 68

KUBER PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment by the Ld. AO and in making addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- despite the fact that the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under section 68

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section I 53C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

4) of the Act and material seized from the search conducted on Jain group of companies. The assessment order was also passed under Section 143(3) read with Section I 53C of the Act making additions under Section 68 of the Act. 20. However, it is an undisputed fact that the statement recorded under Section 132

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30 , NEW DELHI vs. SANJIVANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Sanjivani Industries Pvt. Central Circle -30 Ltd. New Delhi 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan No. Aafcs 8669 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act being share application money and premium received. The addition has been made on the basis of the statement of Shri Mul Chand Malu which was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Before us, it is the case of the Revenue that Mul Chand Malu was not a third party and he was the main person

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. KAMANA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, SONIPAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs Kamana Industries Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-30, Piau Maniyari, New Delhi. Narela Road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana – 131 028. Pan Aabck7580K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav & Shri Shivam Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.4997/Del/2019 For Ay 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi, In Appeal No.172/16- 17/2606 Dated 13.03.2019 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.12.2016 By The Ld. Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Share Capital Received By The Assessee In The Sum Of Rs.7,10,00,000/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

68 of the Act being share application money and premium received. The addition has been made on the basis of the statement of Shri Mul Chand Malu which was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Before us, it is the case of the Revenue that Mul Chand Malu was not a third party and he was the main person