PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 28.06.2017 has deleted the addition in respect of the two parties but confirmed the addition in respect of the remaining twelve parties. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

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

264 ITR 254 (Guj.) When one reads carefully the provisions of section 68, one finds nothing in section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

264 ITR 254 and judgment of this court in ITA No. 1158/2007 Mod Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer decided on 29.08.2007]" Discharge of burden The intention of law is that unaccounted money should be brought to tax. As per provisions of section 68

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case

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)

section 68 of the income tax act is justified. It was further held that onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the said cash deposits. Special leave petition was preferred challenging the above judgment before honourable Supreme court. However, the honourable Supreme Court has dismissed the same in 69 taxmann.com 219 [239 taxmann 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

M/S. PEGASUS SOFTECH (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue should not have any grievance. However, as regards small addition of disallowances of administrative expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the assessment proceedings and proceedings under section 264