MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

68 of the Act are not fulfilled. That being the position, he should have deleted the addition. Instead of doing so, he has confirmed the addition under section 69A of the Act without providing any opportunity to the assessee to explain whether the conditions of section 69A are attracted or not. Further, as per the decision

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

68 of the Act are not fulfilled. That being the position, he should have deleted the addition. Instead of doing so, he has confirmed the addition under section 69A of the Act without providing any opportunity to the assessee to explain whether the conditions of section 69A are attracted or not. Further, as per the decision

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

68 of the Act are not fulfilled. That being the position, he should have deleted the addition. Instead of doing so, he has confirmed the addition under section 69A of the Act without providing any opportunity to the assessee to explain whether the conditions of section 69A are attracted or not. Further, as per the decision

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

68 of the Act are not fulfilled. That being the position, he should have deleted the addition. Instead of doing so, he has confirmed the addition under section 69A of the Act without providing any opportunity to the assessee to explain whether the conditions of section 69A are attracted or not. Further, as per the decision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

68 of the Act are not fulfilled. That being the position, he should have deleted the addition. Instead of doing so, he has confirmed the addition under section 69A of the Act without providing any opportunity to the assessee to explain whether the conditions of section 69A are attracted or not. Further, as per the decision

VACHITRA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

142A and 142B. The documents such as confirmations and ledger accounts were furnished vide letter dated 18.09.2017 vide PB 142. 9.1 In reply to written submissions filed by Ld. DR the ld. Counsel submitted that in the reply filed by the Ld. DR the insistence was that essential ingredients of section 68 were required 9 I.T.A. No. 8148/Del/2019

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

142A of the Income Tax Act. The Valuation Officer in his report, stated that the total investment incurred in the said property should have been `437,88,53,104/- over various years. As against that the assessee had shown the investment at `421,60,56,594/- for the relative period, in its books of account. The comparative year wise details

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

142A of the Income Tax Act. The Valuation Officer in his report, stated that the total investment incurred in the said property should have been `437,88,53,104/- over various years. As against that the assessee had shown the investment at `421,60,56,594/- for the relative period, in its books of account. The comparative year wise details

KAY JAY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 142A(6) of the Act categorically state that the valuation report has to be furnished by the ld. DVO within six months from the end of the month in which reference is made by the ld. AO. Admittedly, the valuation report is dated 28.10.2016 which is beyond the prescribed time of 30.09.2016. Hence, it is clearly evident that

KAY JAY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 142A(6) of the Act categorically state that the valuation report has to be furnished by the ld. DVO within six months from the end of the month in which reference is made by the ld. AO. Admittedly, the valuation report is dated 28.10.2016 which is beyond the prescribed time of 30.09.2016. Hence, it is clearly evident that

KAY JAY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 142A(6) of the Act categorically state that the valuation report has to be furnished by the ld. DVO within six months from the end of the month in which reference is made by the ld. AO. Admittedly, the valuation report is dated 28.10.2016 which is beyond the prescribed time of 30.09.2016. Hence, it is clearly evident that

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 68, made addition of Rs.20 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. So far as the addition on account of unexplained investment in the factory building is concerned he sustained only an amount of Rs.1,18,54,248/- and deleted the balance amount

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 68, made addition of Rs.20 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. So far as the addition on account of unexplained investment in the factory building is concerned he sustained only an amount of Rs.1,18,54,248/- and deleted the balance amount

PARMARTH IRON (P) LTD vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 68, made addition of Rs.20 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. 5. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. So far as the addition on account of unexplained investment in the factory building is concerned he sustained only an amount of Rs.1,18,54,248/- and deleted the balance amount

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

6. On merits, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of cash deposited towards repayment of home loan being 75% of total cash deposit of Rs.24,96,274/- which was incorrectly noted by the Assessing Officer as 25 lakhs. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. URVASHI TALLA, NEW DELHI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) alongwith the order passed by the ITAT, ‘H’ Bench New Delhi vide its order 30.6.2015 in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 5698/Del/2014 i.e. ACIT vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla and in Assessee’s appeal being ITA No. 5974/Del/2014

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA RANI TALLA, NEW DELHI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

6. We have heard both the parties and perused the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) alongwith the order passed by the ITAT, ‘H’ Bench New Delhi vide its order 30.6.2015 in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 5698/Del/2014 i.e. ACIT vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla and in Assessee’s appeal being ITA No. 5974/Del/2014

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer; or (vi) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 158-A and ending with the date on which the order under