DCIT- CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. REALTIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

68, READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT - CASH CREDIT (BURDEN OF PROOF) - 2009-10 TO 2012- 13 - SHARE CAPITAL FROM NON DESCRIPT ENTITIES - SHARE CERTIFICATES,COUNTERFOILS FOUND - STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 46.1 Before deciding the issue on merit, we would first like to decide the legal ground raised by the assessee

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. ENN VEE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

68, READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT - CASH CREDIT (BURDEN OF PROOF) - 2009-10 TO 2012- 13 - SHARE CAPITAL FROM NON DESCRIPT ENTITIES - SHARE CERTIFICATES,COUNTERFOILS FOUND - STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 46.1 Before deciding the issue on merit, we would first like to decide the legal ground raised by the assessee

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. REALTIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

68, READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT - CASH CREDIT (BURDEN OF PROOF) - 2009-10 TO 2012- 13 - SHARE CAPITAL FROM NON DESCRIPT ENTITIES - SHARE CERTIFICATES,COUNTERFOILS FOUND - STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 46.1 Before deciding the issue on merit, we would first like to decide the legal ground raised by the assessee

ENN VEE HOLDINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

158B(b), it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. REALTIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the addition made u/s 68 and u/s 56(2)(viib) in the case of M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

158B(b), it is at once clear that a statement recorded under section 132(4) can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S REAL OVERSEAS P.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

158B, it is open to the assessing officer to include the income of the assessee, which is not disclosed for assessment for the block period though the transaction relating to such income is reflected in the account books of the respective years?" 2. The facts of the present case are that the premises of one Mr. Alok Aggarwal were searched

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANGEETA MISHRA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

158B(b) and 158BA(3) of the Act. The further submission was to the effect that both the proceedings (for regular assessment and block assessment) could run parallel, i.e., regular assessment under section 143(3) as also the block assessment which contained a specific number of years that comprised the “block period”. Likewise, the additions towards

STUDIO DIGITAL PRINTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 158B(b), penal action, if any, would be permissible only after a regular assessment was made - Held, yes” 5 ITA No.299/Del./2015 8. When, in the instant case, undisputedly the Revenue has treated the amount of Rs.7,74,602/- as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 6. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility. The assessee filed a paper-book electronically. In support of her contentions, the Learned DR also filed copy of statements of Late Sh. Mulchand Malu and his son Sh. Vinay Malu. 7. The learned DR strongly relied on the order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. KUBER KHADYAN PVT. LTD., NEW DLEHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 6. Before us, the parties appeared through Video Conferencing facility. The assessee filed a paper-book electronically. In support of her contentions, the Learned DR also filed copy of statements of Late Sh. Mulchand Malu and his son Sh. Vinay Malu. 7. The learned DR strongly relied on the order

KUBER PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

68 of the Act with respect to the M/s. Powermax Pvt. Ltd for issuing share capital at a premium. Total income was assessed at Rs. 1,29,52,434/-. The assessee unsuccessfully contested the above addition before the ld CIT(A) and therefore, has preferred this appeal before us. 9. The ld AR submitted that for assessment year

KUBER PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

68 of the Act with respect to the M/s. Powermax Pvt. Ltd for issuing share capital at a premium. Total income was assessed at Rs. 1,29,52,434/-. The assessee unsuccessfully contested the above addition before the ld CIT(A) and therefore, has preferred this appeal before us. 9. The ld AR submitted that for assessment year

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books of account (Section 69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books of account (Section 69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books of account (Section 69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books of account (Section 69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also different, hence unless the Petitioner

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

158B(b) of the Act. 44. Mr Sawhney’s contention that the fact that the Assessee had not filed its return would render the entire surpluses as disclosed in its books as undisclosed income is not sustainable. According to the Assessee its income was entirely exempt under Section 10(22) of the Act and hence it was not required

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, authority was conferred upon the Income Tax Officer to assess a person as an agent of a foreign party under Section 43 within two years from the end of the year of assessment. But authority of the Income Tax Officer under the Act before it was amended by the Finance