DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

158 (Mumbai - Trib.) where it was held that: "Where assessee received share premium from founder promoter and had discharged its burden of proving his identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, and both lower authorities could not find any defects or fault therein, addition made under section 68

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

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, particularly when in the years of repayment, no adverse inference has been drawn by the Department. It is a matter of record that in the subsequent years no such adverse finding has been recorded in relation to the repayment of these loans. Therefore, the addition as made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

section 68)\n3. Regarding Self Contradictory Findings of the Assessing Officer\nAddition made by AO is not tenable as Ld. AO himself has accepted that out of\n1235 Lakhs received from ANM Fincap Rs.1035 Lakhs is not bogus and out of\n965 Lakhs received from RMP Holdings 800 Lakhs is not bogus. (Page 46, Para

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

68, 69, 69-A, 69-B and 69-C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to ―financial year‖ in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving

MEENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessees by Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate; & Ms. Mansi Jain, C.A.; Department by Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. O R D E R These are four appeals filed by the different assesses against the respective impugned orders dated 22.12.2017, passed by the learned

SUDHIR JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessees by Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate; & Ms. Mansi Jain, C.A.; Department by Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. O R D E R These are four appeals filed by the different assesses against the respective impugned orders dated 22.12.2017, passed by the learned

DAYA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessees by Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate; & Ms. Mansi Jain, C.A.; Department by Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. O R D E R These are four appeals filed by the different assesses against the respective impugned orders dated 22.12.2017, passed by the learned

SUSHMA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessees by Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate; & Ms. Mansi Jain, C.A.; Department by Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. O R D E R These are four appeals filed by the different assesses against the respective impugned orders dated 22.12.2017, passed by the learned

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

section 68)\n\n3.\nRegarding Self Contradictory Findings of the Assessing Officer\nAddition made by AO is not tenable as Ld. AO himself has accepted that out of\n1235 Lakhs received from ANM Fincap Rs.1035 Lakhs is not bogus and out of\n965 Lakhs received from RMP Holdings 800 Lakhs is not bogus. (Page 46, Para

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOHAIL FINANCIALS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3643M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 : The assessee has to prima facie prove (1) the identity of the creditor/subscriber; (2) the genuineness of the transaction, namely, whether it has been transmitted through banking or other indisputable channels; (3) the creditworthiness or financial strength of the creditor/subscriber; (4) if relevant details of the address or PAN identity of the creditor/subscriber are furnished