JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86. Considering the facts of the case in the light of material on record in voluminous paper books and confirmations of the parties 2022:DHC:234

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86. Considering the facts of the case in the light of material on record in voluminous paper books and confirmations of the parties 2022:DHC:234

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86. Considering the facts of the case in the light of material on record in voluminous paper books and confirmations of the parties 2022:DHC:234

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86. Considering the facts of the case in the light of material on record in voluminous paper books and confirmations of the parties 2022:DHC:234

SHRI PRAVEEN GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Praveen Gupta, Vs. Acit, D-101, First Floor, Tower Circle-2, No. D, Caitriona Meerut Residential Apartment Complex, Ambience Island, Gurgoan-22001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acjpg4777H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

section 68 of the Act. He noted as under: Shri Praveen Gupta "During the year under consideration, the assessee has received unsecured deposit of amounting to Rs. 1,14,90,000/-. Most of them are from relatives. It is also noticed that deposit amount was not proportionate with their return of income. The Assessee has filed their confirmations with

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

234 B of the Income Tax Act,1961. 10. The Ld. Income Tax Officer has erred in presuming that the appellant company has furnished inaccurate particulars on income thus leading to concealment of income and has brought itself within the ambit of Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

section 147 is \"income escaping assessment\"\nand that of section 148 \"issue of notice where income escaped\nassessment\". Section 148 is supplementary and complimentary to section\n147. Sub-section (2) of section 148 mandates reasons for issuance of\nnotice by the Assessing Officer and sub-section (1) thereof mandates\nservice of notice

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 of the Act and application of section 11/12 of the Act. 11. The facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, remand report of the AO and rejoinder of the appellant have been considered. The appellant is a society which is not registered u/s 12Aof the Act during the year under consideration. The AO has required

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

section 148A. The\n\nrelevant observations of the hon'ble high court as contained in para 29\nto 32 of the order reads as under:\n\n29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3\nas well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched,\nwe find no justification

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act which provision was applicable w.e.f. 01.10.2009, whereas the transaction of the purchase of the shares took place in the month of September, 2009 i.e. shares were transferred in the name of the appellant on 18.09.2009 and consideration for the purchase of shares were also given by cheque dated 15.09.2009 i.e. prior

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN AQUA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. METBRASS PLASSIM INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. COMPETENT INFOWAYS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. MOON BEVERAGES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. HAL OFFSHORE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. SUNSTAR INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 153A of the I.T. Act. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee had filed full details on account of the sum received from M/s Fortune Industrial Resources Ltd. (Rs.3,96,00,000/-), Sterling Foils Ltd. (Rs.2,00,10,000/-) and Mahesh Finese Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.50,10,000/-) towards

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 as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee therefore we will deal with this issue as and when we deal with the addition made by the Ld. assessing officer which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT (A). In any case, this is a separate transaction which is required to be treated according to the provisions