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 68 of the Act reads as under: “68.Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited

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

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

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 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

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, 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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 68 are CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. [CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1624 : (2008) 299 ITR 268 : (2007) 158