PASWARA IMPEX LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MEERUT

The appeal is dismissed

sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the non-encashment of a cheque and reversal of the entry

RAVINDER BAWEJA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

RAVINDER BAWEJA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NES DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

RAVINDER BAWEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TEPE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further penalty u/s 271(1) (c) has been imposed and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C

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

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

234C & 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, fairly conceded that grounds of appeal

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

234C & 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, fairly conceded that grounds of appeal

ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

68,120/- (including additional compensation of Rs.41,09,18,499/- offered under APA) and claiming FTC credit of Rs.4,88,11,007/-. Consequent to additional compensation offered under APA, the assessee paid interest under Section 234B of the Act at Rs.3,61,81,796/- and under Section 234C

M/S. LAYOG PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2012-13 M/S. Layog Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito N-18, First Floor, Ward-15(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 017 Pan Aabcl9997R (Appellant) (Respondent)

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) is consequential in nature. 5. We now consider ground No. 2 which relates to confirmation of addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- under section 68

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 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

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

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 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

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. NATIOANL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. National E-Assessment 1St Floor, Elegance Tower, Centre, Plot No.8, Non Heirarchial New Delhi. Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, Advocate Ms Bhavya Garg, Ca & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th April, 2021 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3)/144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Amway Corporation Engaged In The Business Of Direct Selling Of Consumer Products. It Sells Its Products Through Multi-Level Marketing (Mlm). Mlm Marketing Allows Direct Sellers To Build A Business Through Their Own Sales Efforts & Inviting Others To Become Direct Sellers. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.113,69,23,009/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Ae, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo For Determination Of The Alp Of The International Transaction Entered Into By It.

section 68 cannot be attracted to amount representing purchase made on credits or outstandings payable. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the AO and direct him to delete the addition. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed. 29 31. So far as the grounds relating

M/S. PSYCHOTROPICS LEASING & FINANCE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2008-09

68 were unjustified - Held, yes [Paras 5,5.2,5.9] [In favour of assessee] 19 14. It is also pertinent to note that the ld. CIT(A) while directing some enquiries to be conducted by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 06.07.2011 has also pointed out various defects in the impugned assessment order such as non-specifying the sections under

NIDHI RANI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant craves

NIMBUS PROJECTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

68 of the Act, being unsecured loan obtained from Kaypee Mercantile Private Limited on the ground that that the appellants have failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender and therefore, the loan obtained is unexplained. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned addition