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

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

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

2) and 143(3) of the Act which give power to the AO to embark upon the due process of assessment obligates the AO to ensure that there is no understatement of income or claim of excessive loss and thereby make assessment of 'Total Income or Loss' of that year. 6.7 Neither section

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

68 has been satisfactorily explained, thus assessment was bad in both law and procedure. 12. That the LD.AO had erred, both in law and in facts, by taxing the Amount deposited in the bank account by way of foreign currency received on account of sale proceeds and also from the debtors, without the mandate of law, in relation

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)

2,221 FV- Rs.10/shares issued on 45,375 27.02.2018 at Rs.20.43 per share Sub-total 7,181 1,35,399 7,16,13,202 Total 134,99,99,904 45. It is pertinent to note that even after issue of aforesaid equity shares by assessee to the existing shareholders, the percentage shareholding of existing shareholders remained same

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

68 of the IT Act 1961). As the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the parties, who gave the unsecured loan and paid cash to the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge primary onus as incomplete address was provided without other details. In view of this, Ld. CIT (A) erred in fact

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.8,50,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the IT Act in respect of alleged creditor. 3. The appellant craves leave, modify, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act. Furthermore, the ld CIT(A) has also given valid reasons for allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 80IC of the Act. The ld Departmental Representative could not controvert the fact pointed by the ld AR that on similar facts the assessee was allowed deduction for Assessment Year 2008-09 and Assessment Year

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL vs. RELIABLE REALTECH PVT LTD, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

145 of the Act and its profits were computed by applying the AS-7. The AO added a sum of Rs. 1,56,88,100 to the Assessee's declared income by applying the percentage completion method. Apart from this the AO disallowed certain other sums including the sums on account of depreciation and under Section

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 68 of the Act as that tantamount to double taxation. It is submitted that double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar

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)

2,50,00,000/-. In view of the above, there is no question for making addition of this amount. Thus the Assessee has satisfactorily discharged the onus lying on him by proving the identity of each and every new shareholder. Further, presuming that the assessee is required to prove the other two requirements of section 68, i.e., creditworthiness

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