DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 271D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal." 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.P. Singh & Co. [P] Ltd 340 ITR 217 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to decide on the fact that once the share application money is treated

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. RUHIL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

68 and the proceedings u/s 271D are totally different and one doesn’t interpolate into the other one. It was argued that the undisclosed income of the assessee and the provisions of Section 269SS r.w.s. 271D would operate concurrently. 11. On the other hand, the ld. AR argued that the provisions of Section 269SS as existing as relevant

SMT. LEKSHMI VISHWANATH,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for violation of Section 269SS separately. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271D of the I.T. Act in a sum of Rs.15,80,000 which is sum equal to the amount of cash loan so taken or accepted. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) considering

ITO, WAR- 64(5), NEW DELHI vs. LEKSHMI VISHWANATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for violation of Section 269SS separately. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271D of the I.T. Act in a sum of Rs.15,80,000 which is sum equal to the amount of cash loan so taken or accepted. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) considering

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 68 are applicable in case where the credit was received by the assessee. However, in the present case, the position is entirely different, as the amount of Rs. 58 lacs was not received by the assessee rather the amount was paid by the assessee to his wife out of his explained sources. Hence, the addition in dispute made

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 68 are applicable in case where the credit was received by the assessee. However, in the present case, the position is entirely different, as the amount of Rs. 58 lacs was not received by the assessee rather the amount was paid by the assessee to his wife out of his explained sources. Hence, the addition in dispute made

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

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

2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of mobilisation of deposits from its members. It is registered as a mutual benefit company under Section 620A of the Companies Act, 1956. It can accept deposits only from its share holders/members and nobody else. 3. Section 269SS of the Income