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 68 of the Act as that tantamount to double taxation. It is submitted that double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

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 stood fulfilled.( Refer Page No. 103-104 of the CIT(A) order of M/s Allure Developers Pvt Ltd. for AY 2020-21). In this regard reliance is being placed upon the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 Taxmann.Com 403 (Sc)/[2018] 257 Taxman

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS COMMUNIQUE MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Ld. AO order. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Toby Delhi 2009 [2010] 324 ITR 338 (Delhi) Consultants High Court (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (ii) Mangilal Madras 2009 [2009] 315 ITR 105 Jain Vs. High Court (Madras)/[2010] 229 CTR 183 ITO (Madras) (iii) Sanraj Delhi High 2016 2016-TIOL-316-HC-DEL-IT Engineering

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 for non-production of depositors or for not proving source of source etc. Himachal Fibers Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 173 (SC)-Affirming DEL.H.C. 24-26 CIT V Jalan Hard Coke Ltd. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 330 (Rajasthan)-- SLP dismissed in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 331 (SC)/[2018] 257 Taxman 91 (SC) 27-27 CIT v Goel Sons Golden Estate

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 68 is completely perverse and in it logical manner without applying the mind inasmuch as the cash credit was introduced by the assessee and on the contrary, the capital of the assessee has got depleted due to shorten capital loss. According to the assessee, it was a case of “cash debit” instead of “cash credit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SINOCHEM INDIA CO. PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

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

173 Cr PC that the police report shall be furnished without delay to the accused along with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution including statements under Section 161 Cr PC, and importantly, statements under Section 164 Cr PC. 51. The Court also finds that in the charge-sheet filed before the trial Court

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

68 of the Act and, as such addition so made is untenable and unsustainable. That no further query was raised by the learned assessing officer after the said details were furnished by the appellant, as such, the appellant was under the belief that the learned officer is satisfied with the explanations and evidences tendered by the appellant, as the burden

ANUPAMA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act on account of sale proceeds of the shares and addition of Rs.18,420/- on account of Commission under section 69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment

PUSHPA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act on account of sale proceeds of the shares and addition of Rs.18,420/- on account of Commission under section 69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment

BHUSHAN GARG (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act on account of sale proceeds of the shares and addition of Rs.18,420/- on account of Commission under section 69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment

RAJESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act on account of sale proceeds of the shares and addition of Rs.18,420/- on account of Commission under section 69C of the I.T. Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee was holding shares for about 36 months which were sold in assessment