KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Act. 4 3.1 In this regard, it is submitted that appellant has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 32,34,000/- during demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 which is tabulated hereunder: Sr. Bank Name Account Number (Pages Date Total Amount of No. of paper book) deposit (pages of Paper Book) i) Oriental bank

SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Praveen Gupta, Vs. Acit, D-101, First Floor, Tower Circle-2, No. D, Caitriona Meerut Residential Apartment Complex, Ambience Island, Gurgoan-22001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acjpg4777H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

section 68 of the Act. He noted as under: Shri Praveen Gupta "During the year under consideration, the assessee has received unsecured deposit of amounting to Rs. 1,14,90,000/-. Most of them are from relatives. It is also noticed that deposit amount was not proportionate with their return of income. The Assessee has filed their confirmations with

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

138 Taxman.com 141 (Bangalore)] 8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. During the demonetization period the assessee company had deposited cash of Rs.21,69,98,000/- into its bank accounts maintained with Federal Bank Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The AO has observed that the total cash deposited

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the income tax act. Thus the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 17. Coming to the merits of the case the learned Commissioner of income tax appeal has decided the above issue holding as under:- “4. During appeal proceedings the counsel of the appellant attended and made following written submission:- “Brief Facts The appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE RESIDENCY PVT. LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIA vs. M/S AJAY REALCON PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 68 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MANTEC CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

68. In N. Raghavender, (supra), the requirement of Section 409 was explained. It was observed: “44. No sooner are the two fundamental ingredients of „criminal breach of trust‟ within the meaning of Section 405 IPC proved, and if such criminal breach is caused by a public servant or a banker, merchant or agent, the said offence of criminal

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, 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