ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

68 by filing all the evidences. The AO has also received reply from the creditor. From the above facts and analysis we are of the view that assessee has lead all evidences in support of its contention and the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction stand established. 1.10 YP Finance and Securities Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has taken

SURABHI ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PEARLS ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed on merit

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 68 of the Act. To buttress his claim, the Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to the following case laws:- 1. Order of the ITAT, Delhi in ITA Nos.6991 to 6997/Del/2014 for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2011-12 (Shri Virender Kumar Jain) and ITA Nos.6998 to 7004/Del/2014 for A.Y.s 2005-06 to 2011-12 (Shri Surender Kumar Jain

ATUL MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

193 ITR 318, 320 (All.). 3.1.10 In view of the above discussion and ratio of judicial pronouncements, it is held that assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with regard to the onus to be discharged by it to explain the identity of the creditors/ investors their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions as provided in Section 68

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the IT Act. We find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition so made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed the requisite details such as copy of the bank account, copy of the Income-tax returns, copy of confirmations, details of allotment of shares

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the IT Act. We find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition so made by the AO. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed the requisite details such as copy of the bank account, copy of the Income-tax returns, copy of confirmations, details of allotment of shares

M/S. R.P. SINGH & CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Vs. The Acit, Circle-15(1), C.R. M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 382, Bhera Enclave Pachim Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaacr5778B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. J.S. Kochar & U.S. Kochar, Advocates. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 14.08.2012, For Assessment Year 2000-01 Raising The Following Grounds : 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,90,000/- Received As Share Application Money, Despite The Fact That Out Of A Total Of 29 Share Applicants. I. 19 Applicants Whose Aggregate Investments Were Rs.10,15,000 Were Produced Before The A.O. & They Confirmed Their Investments. Ii. 2 Applicants With Aggregate Investments Of Rs.90,000 Had Since Died & Their Death Certificates Were Filed. Iii. Request Was Made To The Assessing Officer To Issue Summons U/S 131 To 4 Applicants With Aggregate Investment

Section 68 of the IT Act. The assessed 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

VACHITRA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

section 68 as well as Proviso to Sec. 68. 24.2 The Ld. DR submits that Ld. CIT (A) has observed that the appellant provided the AO with bank statement, the ledger and the copy of ITR of the lender Para- 5.3, P/15-16 of appeal order]. However Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the AO is at the complete independence

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit. 10. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of understatement of sale consideration of property no-67, Road no-41, Punjabi Bagh. 11. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.40

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit. 10. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of understatement of sale consideration of property no-67, Road no-41, Punjabi Bagh. 11. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.40

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. INDERPAL SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit. 10. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of understatement of sale consideration of property no-67, Road no-41, Punjabi Bagh. 11. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.40

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI vs. HARVANSH P CHAWLA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

193 CTR (Guj) 518 No addition on the basis of presumption (a) That in the case of appellant, there is neither any direct evidence for the receipt of Rs.28,00,00,000/- nor any circumstantial evidence suggesting the appellant as beneficiary of that amount. In fact, the addition in appellant case was made on the basis presumption, surmises and conjecture

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5, NEW DELHI vs. HARVANSH P CHAWLA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

193 CTR (Guj) 518 No addition on the basis of presumption (a) That in the case of appellant, there is neither any direct evidence for the receipt of Rs.28,00,00,000/- nor any circumstantial evidence suggesting the appellant as beneficiary of that amount. In fact, the addition in appellant case was made on the basis presumption, surmises and conjecture

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARTEX KNITTING INDS. P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 68 of the Act did not get examined /investigated. The Ld. Sr. DR placed emphasis on the ground of appeal where the decision of the Page 5 of 11 Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 134/2012 dated 21.12.2012 was mentioned. 7.2 To buttress his claim

M/S. QNS CASTINGS PVT. LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 68 of the Act. To buttress his claim, the Ld. DR drew our attention to the following case laws:- “i. SumanGupta-(SLP(C)CC-2152-2013)(2013-LL-0122-69)SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.01.2013, ii. Pradhan Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-1983(Mum.), iii. Seema Jain [2018] 96 taxmann.com

ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI vs. VINOD RICE MEAL PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

Section 68 of the Act. In the case of Sumati Dayal v/s CIT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that payment of cheque is not conclusive evidence of credit worthiness of the payer and it is only a 2 Vinod Rice Meal Pvt. Ltd. neutral evidence in tax proceedings. Payment by cheque does not per se establish

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 (SC). "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 (SC). "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 (SC). "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through ACIT V Surya Build well Private Limited