DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off. There, is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off. There, is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off. There, is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 145(2) of the Act. The assessee was regularly following the 'project completion method, which is a recognized method. The completion of each project is determined by 'sign off. There, is nothing on record to show that there was any inconsistency in this regard. The CIT(A) found that the deferred income amounting to Rs.39,68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68, 69, to 69D, etc. of the Act. But it is not the intent and purpose of the statute. Due to non-inclusion of items coming to knowledge of the AO from any mode/source, yet he can make assessment based on such accounts without rejecting the books of accounts under section 145

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act. While making the said addition, the NFAC vaguely alleged that the assessee has not filed the requisite details/ documentary evidence to establish the nature and source of credit in the form of share capital, nor it is proved that the amount has been received from the non-resident. Re: Proceedings before

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ELATIVE BUILDING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act and submitted that it basically carries the heading: ‘Cash Credit.’ Therefore, if there is no cash transaction, then, the said provisions cannot be applicable. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jatia Investment Company vs. CIT, 206 ITR 718, he submitted that the Hon’ble High

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus purchases Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T.(A) Made by the A.O. Sustained by the C.I.T

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case and accordingly the entire addition deserves to be deleted which has rightly been done by the ld. CIT(A) which does not require any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” 21. Similar view has been taken by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal

ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DLEHI vs. ZEXUS AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 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.

section 68 cannot be applied to the instant case as there is no actual receipt of money by the assessee whether by cash or cheque during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions

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 145(3) be treated as income u/s 68 of the Act while 145(1) provides that it is for once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_I/2024- 25/1065485485(1) on 07/06/2024 requiring the assessee M/s Shrish Enterprises Private Limited (hereinafter may be referred to as "the Firm") to provide the documents and information as per the annexure of the said notice, we would like to submit as under: 1. Please prove the genuineness

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

145 taxmann.com 27) (Gujarat) has held that where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had furnished requisite material showing identity of loan givers and that assessee was not beneficiary as loan was repaid in subsequent year, no addition under section 68

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the Ld. AR stated that the fact that the notice was served through registered post upon the shareholders proved their existence……..” 17. The assessee had sufficiently explained the purpose of raising funds, business model of the assessee company etc. before the ld. CIT(A) who after accepting the explanation of the assessee