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)

3: General Re: Grounds of Appeal Nos.4-4.5: Addition u/s 68 on account of share capital received from non-resident holding company 18 43. The appellant is a closely held company and was incorporated in March 2013.The shareholding pattern of the appellant as on 01.04.2017 [opening balance at beginning of relevant year] was as under: Number of % Name of shareholder shares

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. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd [supra]…” The ITAT also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilhari Investment

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. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd [supra]…” The ITAT also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilhari Investment

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. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd [supra]…” The ITAT also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilhari Investment

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. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd [supra]…” The ITAT also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilhari Investment

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. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd [supra]…” The ITAT also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilhari Investment

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

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

145(3) of the Act and thereafter a gross profit rate had to be estimated on a reasonable basis keeping in mind the prevailing market trend. 4.6 As regards cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period; against a proposal to add Rs.180.53 crores, as suggested by the Investigation Wing, for the reasons given in the deviation report

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

145(3) of the Act and thereafter a gross profit rate had to be estimated on a reasonable basis keeping in mind the prevailing market trend. 4.6 As regards cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period; against a proposal to add Rs.180.53 crores, as suggested by the Investigation Wing, for the reasons given in the deviation report

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

145(3) of the Act and thereafter a gross profit rate had to be estimated on a reasonable basis keeping in mind the prevailing market trend. 4.6 As regards cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period; against a proposal to add Rs.180.53 crores, as suggested by the Investigation Wing, for the reasons given in the deviation report

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

145(3) of the Act and thereafter a gross profit rate had to be estimated on a reasonable basis keeping in mind the prevailing market trend. 4.6 As regards cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period; against a proposal to add Rs.180.53 crores, as suggested by the Investigation Wing, for the reasons given in the deviation report

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 18 + 24 9,15,19,864 (28.68%) + 3,85,454 + 1.47,75,588 From the above table it can be seen that in a case of the appellant if the disallowances are made on account of alleged Bogus expenses and expenses incurred in cash above prescribed limit as per provisions of section 40A(3