BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

68,56,389/- Add: Adjustment as per order Rs. 1,14,41,802/- under section 92CA(3) of the TPO Add: Claim of deduction of Rs. 18,84,08,295/- retention money retained by the contractee Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) Rs. 1,42,72,897/- r.w. section 2(24)(x) Total assessed income

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

172 2. Mokama- Munger NHAI Two laining with 2.43.46,365 paved shoulder of (Through Mokama Munger Project Section of NH-Bo Company Mokama- Munger Highway Ltd. 3. Danapur ROB Ircon Construction of 72,30,449 International Road over Bridge Ltd. both railway span and adjacent approaches including Reinforced Earth Wall/Retaining Wall between section Phulwarishrif- Danapur on EC Railway

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 115BBE of the Act. 4 3.1 In this regard, it is submitted that appellant has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 32,34,000/- during demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 which is tabulated hereunder: Sr. Bank Name Account Number (Pages Date Total Amount of No. of paper book) deposit (pages of Paper Book) i) Oriental bank

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:-

4,00,77,500/- respectively. Only Madura Bank could not send confirmation report as its branch in Ahmedabad was closed. CIT (Appeals) also found that the entire money had come through the Banking channel and the share holders had contributed to share applications from various places. Only on the ground that out of 68 parties, 56 parties did not respond

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30 , NEW DELHI vs. SANJIVANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usacit Vs. Sanjivani Industries Pvt. Central Circle -30 Ltd. New Delhi 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110 008 Pan No. Aafcs 8669 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

172 (Allahabad) submitted that Hon’ble High Court has held that the AO has power to reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment. With respect to the reliance placed by CIT(A) on the decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

DAIKIN AIRCONDITIONING INDIA PVT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -XI vs. AMIT MALHOTRA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

PR. CIT CENTRAL-1 vs. AMRAPALI GRAND

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II vs. SPN MILK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I vs. SIDDHARATH SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JUBLIANT OIL & GAS PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 313 Cr.P.C. the claim of the appellant was that these were private transactions without any further explanation. 8.7. Evidence in respect of Allegation (i): It is the case of prosecution that eight cheques of CWC amounting to ₹5,12,857/- were deposited in the account No. 42861 in the name of R.L. Kawale (A-5) (since deceased

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

172 (SC) Tuticorn Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT 285 ITR 221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34. Act to have over-riding effect - (1). Save as provided under sub-Section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 34 of RDBA (as originally enacted in 1993), after amendment brought about with retrospective effect from 17.01.2000, reads as under :- "34. Act to have over-riding effect - (1). Save as provided under sub-Section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses