ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

198 (Delhi), date of order 25.09.2017. It has been held in the aforesaid order at paras 19 & 20. as follows: ”19. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that on a routine basis, a large number of writ petitions are filed challenging the reopening of assessments by the Revenue under Sections

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

Section 68 have been explained as under: (a) There has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee. (b) Such credit has to be a sum during the previous year. (c) The assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit. (d) The explanation offer is not satisfactory Then the sums

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

LOKENATH INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 68 was made to income of assessee on ground that share capital of more than Rs. 316 crores was invested by foreign company in assessee, onus to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction was solely on assessee and merely because statutory approvals had been obtained by assessee, it did not sanctify transaction. 5. Amar Jewellers

MOTI ADHESIVES P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 68 of the Act and held to be the income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act and was added to the income of the assessee and also Rs. 45,000/- was added for arranging such accommodation entry necessary entails payment of commission to entry providers, vide order dated 31.10.2016 and assessed the income of the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

section 68 of the Act.”\n6.5 It is also stated in the submission that the issue is squarely covered in\nfavor of the appellant by the decision of various Tribunals, wherein it has been\nconsistently held that where cash deposited post-demonetization by assessee\nwas out of cash sales which had been accepted by Sales Tax/VAT Department\nand

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PARAGON XT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

68,08,746/- (Rs. 63,97,422 + Rs. 4,11,324/-) 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition amounting to Rs. 81,000/- on account of disallowance of accounting charges claimed in Profit & Loss account 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Restricted disallowance of donation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- in absence

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

198,20,65,830/-(accommodation entries of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- plus commission of Rs. 3,19,51,711/- (-) amount owned up by the persons to whom these entries were provided of a sum of Rs. 18,00,00,000/-) and in A.Y. 2012-13 income has been assessed

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

198,20,65,830/-(accommodation entries of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- plus commission of Rs. 3,19,51,711/- (-) amount owned up by the persons to whom these entries were provided of a sum of Rs. 18,00,00,000/-) and in A.Y. 2012-13 income has been assessed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

198,20,65,830/-(accommodation entries of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- plus commission of Rs. 3,19,51,711/- (-) amount owned up by the persons to whom these entries were provided of a sum of Rs. 18,00,00,000/-) and in A.Y. 2012-13 income has been assessed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

198,20,65,830/-(accommodation entries of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- plus commission of Rs. 3,19,51,711/- (-) amount owned up by the persons to whom these entries were provided of a sum of Rs. 18,00,00,000/-) and in A.Y. 2012-13 income has been assessed

SH. HIMANSHU VERMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

198,20,65,830/-(accommodation entries of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- plus commission of Rs. 3,19,51,711/- (-) amount owned up by the persons to whom these entries were provided of a sum of Rs. 18,00,00,000/-) and in A.Y. 2012-13 income has been assessed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HIMANSHU VERMA, DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

198,20,65,830/-(accommodation entries of Rs. 213,01,14,122/- plus commission of Rs. 3,19,51,711/- (-) amount owned up by the persons to whom these entries were provided of a sum of Rs. 18,00,00,000/-) and in A.Y. 2012-13 income has been assessed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LIFESTYLE TEXWORKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Texworks Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-4(1), Room No. 407, 4Th Apartment 530, Tower Iii, Mount Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Kailash, East Of Kailash, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacl7069F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 16.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 21/02/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi Raising Following Grounds; “01. The Order Of The Learned Cit (Appeals) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 02. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.52,29,408/- Made U/S 68 Of The Act, Being The Unconfirmed Unsecured Loan. 2.1 The Ld. Cit (A) Has Ignored The Findings Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not Discharge The Onus Of Proving The Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transactions. 03. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred I N Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,62,503/- Made On Account Of Disallowance Excessive Expenditure. 3.1. The Ld. Cit (A) Ignored The Finding Recorded By The Ao & The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Required Evidences To Substantiate Its Claim.

Section 68 has come up for consideration before various High Courts which have held that the assessee has to prove three conditions (i) identity of the creditor (ii) capacity of such creditor to advance money & (iii) genuineness of the transaction. [Vide Shankar Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.); C. Kant & Company

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

198 ITR 147 (Ker.); CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 495(Cal.). 5.8 Section 68 of the Act was also

M/S SHRI SHYAM SUNDER INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of Rs.1,96,000/- on account of Commission]. 8. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.Y. 2003-04 under appeal is the first year of incorporation of the assessee company as the assessee company was originally incorporated on 27.02.2003 in the name of M/s. Shalom Exim (P) Ltd., In assessment year

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

198 (SC)\n\n6) Where Assessing Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under\nsection 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of\nstatement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other\nproceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-\nexamine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating

SANJAY DALMIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF

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

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act PW-6 (in probate case) Sh. Sunil Mehta the attesting witness, was examined by Shri Mahendra Khurania. He deposed that in February, 1994, Smt. Gulab Devi had told her that she wanted to execute a Will and if he would be willing to be an attesting witness, to which he consented. Subsequently