THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found

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

68 ITA No.l497/Del/20I8 ACIT vs. Shimmer Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 of the Act are justified in law in the hands of the assessee company in the absence of any credit entry recorded in the books and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and having regard to the law governing the field. It may be useful

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX DELHI - 5 vs. MRS. ROWENA SHARMA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits found

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBRAMANIAM ASHOK KUMAR, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 68 of the Act and hence treated amount as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While making the addition, the AO relied on the following case laws:  In Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has taken the view that, “Where any sum is found credited in the books

SUBRAMANIAM ASHOK KUMAR,TAMIL NADU vs. ACIT, CENTYRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal & the Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 68 of the Act and hence treated amount as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While making the addition, the AO relied on the following case laws:  In Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has taken the view that, “Where any sum is found credited in the books

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

68 of the IT Act 1961). As the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the parties, who gave the unsecured loan and paid cash to the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge primary onus as incomplete address was provided without other details. In view of this, Ld. CIT (A) erred in fact

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SENORITA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

248, C.R. V-6/1, FIRST FLOOR, BUILDING, GREEN PARK EXTEN., I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110016 NEW DELHI – 11 0002 (PAN : AAJCS7373P) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. Yogesh Jagia, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated

MILI MARKETING PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. Mili Marketing Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H-108, Connaught Circus, Ward-16(4), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcm7097H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Respondent By Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024

section 68. 17. It may be important to point out that Udyam Merchantile (P) Ltd. has made investments out of the money received back from Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. which it has advanced in earlier years outs of its income. An idea of the strength of Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. can be had from the Investment holding

DURGESH AUTOFIN P.LTD,BIJNOR vs. PRCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

68 of the Act and choose to invoke provisions of violation of Section 269SS and had proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271D which is also levied for which appeal was filed before CIT(A) Muzaffarnagar and which appeal was finally heard on 09-01-2018. In this manner the AO has adopted one permissible view. Therefore, to this extent

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. XO INFOTECH LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, Appeal of the Department is

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L.P.Sahu[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Xo Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now Known As M/S. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron Vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati To Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.Pan-Aaaxx0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018

68 of the Act, therefore, addition of Rs.16.95 crores was made to the returned income. This addition was challenged before Ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee filed written submissions before Ld.CIT(A which is forwarded to the AO for filing the Remand Report. The Remand Report is reproduced in the appellate order as under:- ITA No.3342/Del/2013 XO Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI vs. PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 68 of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2014-15. 5. The ld. CIT (Appeals), on appeal before him held that all these outstanding loans were received in the earlier years except loan of Rs. 6,15,248

CIT vs. ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 68 of the Act and consequent addition of commission at 1%. ITA 246 /2012, ITA 247 /2012 & I.T.A 248/2012 Page 20 of 43 ITA 248

CIT vs. ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD

Section 68 of the Act and consequent addition of commission at 1%. ITA 246 /2012, ITA 247 /2012 & I.T.A 248/2012 Page 20 of 43 2013:DHC:7841-DB ITA 248

CIT vs. ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD

Section 68 of the Act and consequent addition of commission at 1%. ITA 246 /2012, ITA 247 /2012 & I.T.A 248/2012 Page 20 of 43 2013:DHC:7841-DB ITA 248

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

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 ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010

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

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 ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010

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

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 ITA No 2702, 2703 /Del/2010

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MAF ACADEMY P. LTD

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding the same to be camouflage transactions / accommodation entries? 3. The Assessee had filed the return for the Assessment Year 2002-03 declaring nil income. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. On the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing