PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68, claiming the credits were exempt donations under Section 13A; (2) procedural irregularities, including insufficient response time to notices and the absence of a show- cause notice; and (3) the initial application of Section 115BBE for tax calculation (subsequently rectified). 3. As with regard to the addition of Rs.19,15,269

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68, claiming the credits were exempt donations under Section 13A; (2) procedural irregularities, including insufficient response time to notices and the absence of a show- cause notice; and (3) the initial application of Section 115BBE for tax calculation (subsequently rectified). 3. As with regard to the addition of Rs.19,15,269

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68, claiming the credits were exempt donations under Section 13A; (2) procedural irregularities, including insufficient response time to notices and the absence of a show- cause notice; and (3) the initial application of Section 115BBE for tax calculation (subsequently rectified). 3. As with regard to the addition of Rs.19,15,269

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68, claiming the credits were exempt donations under Section 13A; (2) procedural irregularities, including insufficient response time to notices and the absence of a show- cause notice; and (3) the initial application of Section 115BBE for tax calculation (subsequently rectified). 3. As with regard to the addition of Rs.19,15,269

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68, claiming the credits were exempt donations under Section 13A; (2) procedural irregularities, including insufficient response time to notices and the absence of a show- cause notice; and (3) the initial application of Section 115BBE for tax calculation (subsequently rectified). 3. As with regard to the addition of Rs.19,15,269

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68, claiming the credits were exempt donations under Section 13A; (2) procedural irregularities, including insufficient response time to notices and the absence of a show- cause notice; and (3) the initial application of Section 115BBE for tax calculation (subsequently rectified). 3. As with regard to the addition of Rs.19,15,269

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

section 68 or not. 20.5 The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case that profits earned by the assessee are part of major scheme of accommodation entries. 20.6 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee as no substantial question

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

EASTERN AND WESTERN DRESSES TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Eastern & Western Dresses Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ward-8(1), No. 7, Shankar Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabce5153G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

section 68 6.12 CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 2014 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 269 Under section

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

68 of the Act (Ground No.2) 2. The material issue in the appeal is the addition of Rs. 2,94,80,000/- received by the assessee company during the year as share capital and share premium. 3. Assessing officer made addition by alleging it to be an accommodation entry ignoring the explanation and evidence submitted by the assessee as well

M/S. RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act. In both the above cases it was adjudged that confirmation letters, PAN numbers, income tax assessment status and ROC registration and filing of returns with ROC, acceptance of money by account payee cheques / drafts, and repayments of interest on loans by crossed cheques and the lenders' depositions before

M/S. NOVA IRON & STEEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee establishes

NIRANKARI SONS JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(3), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

68 of the Act tantamount to double taxation, as argued by the learned AR, is also found to be acceptable. There is no statutory bar in making cash sales in A.Y. 2017-18. Section 269

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 is invoked then the tax leviable would be much lower than that amount.” 12. The ld. Pr. CIT after considering the above explanation of the assessee observed that the claim of the assessee that it had accepted those loans from 177 persons had been rejected by the AO by giving detailed reasons in the assessment order

NCR BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed in favour of the Assessee

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ncr Business Park Pvt. Ltd, Circle-18(1), 3, Shivji Marg, Westend Greens New Delhi Rangpuri, Delhi Pan: Aacck7819E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ncr Business Park Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 3, Shivji Marg, Westend Circle-18(1), Greens Rangpuri, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacck7819E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the IT Act. The Revenue challenged this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue reported in 268 taxmann.com 392. The same has also been relied by Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in ITO Vs Zexus Air Services

DCIT, CIRCLE- 18(1), NEW DELHI vs. NCR BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed in favour of the Assessee

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ncr Business Park Pvt. Ltd, Circle-18(1), 3, Shivji Marg, Westend Greens New Delhi Rangpuri, Delhi Pan: Aacck7819E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ncr Business Park Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 3, Shivji Marg, Westend Circle-18(1), Greens Rangpuri, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacck7819E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the IT Act. The Revenue challenged this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue reported in 268 taxmann.com 392. The same has also been relied by Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in ITO Vs Zexus Air Services

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

269 and share application money of Rs. 7,50,000. Sahara claimed to have mobilized the above amount by way of private placement of shares from 65,285 persons through a network of establishments maintained by its sister concern M/s. Sahara India (Firm). Against the face value of Rs. 10 per share, a sum of Rs. 41was collected as premium

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- XVI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

269 and share application money of Rs. 7,50,000. Sahara claimed to have mobilized the above amount by way of private placement of shares from 65,285 persons through a network of establishments maintained by its sister concern M/s. Sahara India (Firm). Against the face value of Rs. 10 per share, a sum of Rs. 41was collected as premium