ACRES BUILDWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1 (3), , NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acres Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(3), 6-D, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Khan Pur, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan: Aaacj0152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venketesh Chourasia, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.08.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10389/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 10.12.2019, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

269T of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is, therefore, advised to take appropriate action.” 7. We are of the considered view that for the purpose of section 68

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68 of the Act in the assessment against which an appeal was pending. In this view of the matter, he held that the assessee was liable to penalty under Section 271D. 6. A similar view was taken by him in respect of the applicability of Section 269T

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

68 of the Act in the assessment against which an appeal was pending. In this view of the matter, he held that the assessee was liable to penalty under Section 271D. 6. A similar view was taken by him in respect of the applicability of Section 269T

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Assessment Years : 2008-09

68 and addition upheld by the Appellant Authority, there was neither a loan nor a deposit and as such there was no violation of section 269SS or 269T

SH. DEEPAK MINDA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Deepak Minda, Vs Additional Cit, A-67/2, G.T. Karnal Road, Range 20, Delhi-110052 New Delhi. (Pan: Aadpm6422B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri P. Dankanunjna, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2016

68 of Income Tax Act is not covered in this case. The assessee agreed that only section 269 T is partly covered in this case as the near relation Mr. Harish Bindal demanded cash and he has accepted the receipt of cash against their loan account. Section 269T

SH. P.C. MINDA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

68 of Income Tax Act is not covered in this case. The assessee agreed that only section 269 T is partly covered in this case as the near relation Mr. Harish Bindal demanded cash and he has accepted the receipt of cash against their loan account. Section 269T

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GANPATI HYDRO POWER PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

269T in respect of the parties where by mutual agreement the "Debtors" have been converted as "Loan and Advance", "creditors for goods" have been treated as "unsecured loan" as it is a case of taking or accepting loans and deposits otherwise than by an account payee cheques / bank drafts. The AO in his order vide para 11 has given

JAGDISH PRASHAD GUPTA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT RANGE 1(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta, Vs. Jcit, 580/227, Bhartiya Colony, Range 1(1), New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh – 251 001. Pan: Ahbpg9897R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

68 of the Act, 1961 ……therefore, provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, 1961 are not applicable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SHRI SIDHDATA ISPAT (P) LTD.

68. Otherwise also the identity of the parties has been established beyond doubt and even their sources explained. The amount has been received towards share application money. Therefore no addition can be made in the hands of the appellant company. The AO may pass on the information about quantum of investment to the concerned AOs having jurisdiction over the investors

BALWAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

269T and imposed penalty of Rs.21,82,000/- and Rs.16,70,500/- respectively. The assessee challenged the imposition of penalty under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Vs Neeraj Aggarwal, Central Circle-17, Rz-227B, Sadh Nagar, New Delhi. Gali No.6, Palam Colony, New Delhi – 110 045. Pan: Afnpa1136K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Ms Bhavya Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-31/10297/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-17, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

section 68, the loans cannot be treated as Income. The Assessing Officer has not initiated any proceedings u/s 269SS or 269T

BHARTIYA SAMRUDDHI FINANCE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), C.R. BUILDING, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Vs. Dcit, F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash Circle-4(2), Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Dcit, Vs. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Circle-4(2), F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash New Delhi Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

Section 269T of the Act, per se have been wrongly applied by the ld AO. We find that assessee had merely recovered its pre-existing debts from thousands of customers in cash and had deposited the same in the bank account, including the deposits made during demonetization period. From the table furnished by the assessee, we find that cash

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. BHARTIYA SAMRUDHHI FINANCE LIMITED, STREET KOTI, HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Vs. Dcit, F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash Circle-4(2), Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Dcit, Vs. Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd, Circle-4(2), F-5, Ground Floor, Kailash New Delhi Colony, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb5337Q Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

Section 269T of the Act, per se have been wrongly applied by the ld AO. We find that assessee had merely recovered its pre-existing debts from thousands of customers in cash and had deposited the same in the bank account, including the deposits made during demonetization period. From the table furnished by the assessee, we find that cash

ACIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI vs. HI QUALITY FOOD & BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

68 of the Act. Thus, the addition made by the AO is deleted. 6.5.2 However, having said so, it is noted that out of the above, the assessee company has received Rs.4,10,000/- loan amount in cash and also repaid the same in cash, which is against the provisions of Section 269SS and Section 269T

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

68,30,422/- has escaped assessment as defined by section 147 of the Act for assessment year 2011-12. The income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for this year by the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Therefore, it is a fit case for the issuance

SHIVANGI INTERNATIONAL,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishishivangi International, Vs. Cit, Meerut Cold Storage Building, Aayakar Bhawan, Delhi Road, Meerut Bhaisali Ground, Meerut Pan: Aadfs3912Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 as unexplained cash credits. 8. That on the facts/ circumstances of the case and under the laws, the ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to verify addition to the fixed assets from the bills and also look into the source of investment, allowability of depreciation etc. 9. That the ld CIT Meerut has erred in recording

AMIT SABHARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

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

section 44AB and since there is no limitation for initiation of penalty u/s 271B and such penalty need not be initiated during the course of any assessment proceedings only, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

M/S. SHREE KAILA DEVI REAL ESTATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

section 269SS. Accordingly penalty u/s 271D was imposed relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2005) 275 ITR 399. The Page 2 of 9 I.T.A .No.-855 to 857 & 785 to 786/Del/2014 explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was not accepted