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

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

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

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

SUKUMAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwals.A.No.524/Del/2024 [In Ita No.5401/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sukumar Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., Vs National Faceless C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Appeals Centre South Delhi, (Nfac), Delhi Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaqcs8755B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gagan Kumar, Adv. & Shri Gagan Deep, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order

68 of the Act, despite the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction having been duly established. 4. The NFAC erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in imposing interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

M/S. PARAS SPARES & ACCESSORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] M/S Paras Spares & Ito, Accessories Ltd. Ward No.19(3), B-1/126, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi New Ashok Nagar, (Near Metro Pillar No.166), New Delhi-110096 Pan- Aadcp2321D Assessee Revenue

68 of the Act on account of unexplained Sundry Creditors and advances from customers respectively is upheld. These grounds of appeal are ruled against the appellant. 9. Ground No. 6 & 7 are directed against addition of Rs.8,869/- u/s 14A read with rule 8D of with Rule 8D. 9.1. The AO disallowed Rs.8,869/- by applying provisions of Section

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234D of the Act without appreciating that no refund was granted to the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars

M/S BRAHMAPUTRA FINLEASE (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -17, New M/S. Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd., Brahmaputra House, A-7, Delhi Nh-8, Mahipalpur Crossing, Mahipalpur, New Delhi Pan : Aaack3691G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush Kumar Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Aparna Karan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2017 Order

68 of the Act. 3 That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant company and therefore the same are contrary to principle of natural justice and hence vitiated. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy

ALEXIS GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234D of the Act. 10. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted elaborately before us and also filed a written submissions, which is reproduced as under:- “1.SOURCE ESTABLISHED AS PAYMENTS DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL OUT OF FUNDS

MANNAT HOSPITALITY (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Mannat Hospitality (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer 325, Jagirit Enclave, Vs Ward – 16 (2) Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aagcm0506Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Repudaman Thakur, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2019 Order

Section 153C r.w.s 153A(1)(b) and 1st Proviso to Sec. 153A(1) of the Act; the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3), r.w.s. 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction. 1 That CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition was made u/s. 68 of the Income

AJAY KUMAR MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1857/Del/2016, A.Y. 2009-10

Section 68 of the Act, therefore, whole of amount has to be treated as unexplained and added to the income of assessee. In view of this discussion, grounds raised by appellant are dismissed.” 3. The assessee has now raised following grounds; 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case confirming

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

section Ashwini Kumar Taneja 4 68 as elucidated on pages 24, 25 and 26 of my appellate order also apply mutatis mutandis to this adjudication. Thus, a total addition of Rs 65,00,000/- ( Rs 25,00,000/- of Shyam sunder Bansal + Rs 40,00,000/- of Ankit Birla) is upheld.” 2.2 In regard to the addition made

HARDEEP DALAL,SONEPAT vs. ITO WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "68", "250", "234A", "234B", "234D", "271AAC(1)" ], "issues": "Whether cash deposits in bank accounts, explained as originating

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 Moon Beverages Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

68 of the Act. 2.5 That reliance placed on section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and, various judgments to bring to tax a credit duly recorded and, explained is based on complete misconception and, thus unsustainable. 2.6 That various adverse findings by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to sustain the addition is factually incorrect, contrary

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 Moon Beverages Ltd., Acit, Central Circle- 15, 25, Bazar Lane, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

68 of the Act. 2.5 That reliance placed on section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and, various judgments to bring to tax a credit duly recorded and, explained is based on complete misconception and, thus unsustainable. 2.6 That various adverse findings by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to sustain the addition is factually incorrect, contrary

M/S. M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

section 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C and u/s 234D of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant company. It is therefore, prayed that, it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be quashed and, further addition

M/S. M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3335/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

section 234A, u/s 234B, u/s 234C and u/s 234D of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant company. It is therefore, prayed that, it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be quashed and, further addition