NAZIA ZAFAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

133A and section 131 by investigation wing Kolkata. Finally AO treated share sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

NASEEM SAAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

133A and section 131 by investigation wing Kolkata. Finally AO treated share sale proceeds as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

SOCIETY FOR WELFARE AWARENESS RESEARCH AND GUIDANCE,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

133A conducted at its premises. It was admitted by the director of the said foundation that accommodation entries had been provided in the garb of donations to various trust/societies including the donation to the assessee society amounting to Rs. 23,00,000/-. The assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on it as per the provisions of section 68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act towards the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is hereby, deleted. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 8. 4115/Del/2025 [AY 2019-20] is dismissed. ITA No.4067/Del/2024 (Assessee’s Appeal) for AY 2019-20 9. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. “That

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act towards the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is hereby, deleted. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 8. 4115/Del/2025 [AY 2019-20] is dismissed. ITA No.4067/Del/2024 (Assessee’s Appeal) for AY 2019-20 9. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. “That

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

133A of the Act was also conducted and in certain cases, during the course of survey in those cases the transactions pertaining to present appellant were found. The AO has also taken care the documents impounded during the course of survey and the statement of certain persons recorded during and post survey investiations investigations. It was also revealed that

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act read with Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. BECAUSE by sustaining the aforesaid addition and denying the set off of loss under Section 70, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that appellant was owner of equity shares of listed companies which the appellant held for number of months and the same were

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any,

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) was carried out on various companies of BDR groups. On examination of information available on records, it was found that the amount, which was received by the respondent/assessee (hereinafter “assessee”) company during the relevant assessment year on account of share capital and security premium, has escaped assessment. Thereafter, a notice

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any,

Bench: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) was carried out on various companies of BDR groups. On examination of information available on records, it was found that the amount, which was received by the respondent/assessee (hereinafter “assessee”) company during the relevant assessment year on account of share capital and security premium, has escaped assessment. Thereafter, a notice

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -2 vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 133A. It was a statement by the Assessee himself. In response to question no. 7 whether all the purchases made by the family firms, were entered in the regular books of account, the answer was: “We and our family firms namely M/s Assam Supari Traders and M/s Balaji Perfumes generally try to record the transactions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERSN N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 133A. It was a statement by the Assessee himself. In response to question no. 7 whether all the purchases made by the family firms, were entered in the regular books of account, the answer was: “We and our family firms namely M/s Assam Supari Traders and M/s Balaji Perfumes generally try to record the transactions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 133A. It was a statement by the Assessee himself. In response to question no. 7 whether all the purchases made by the family firms, were entered in the regular books of account, the answer was: “We and our family firms namely M/s Assam Supari Traders and M/s Balaji Perfumes generally try to record the transactions

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

68 was made to income of assessee on ground that share capital of more than Rs. 316 crores was invested by foreign company in assessee, onus to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was solely on assessee and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, it did not sanctify transaction. 5. Amar Jewellers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner