PARTAP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 of the Act. The finding is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and wholly untenable apart from being arbitrary, unjustified, unreasonable and not in accordance with mandate of principles of natural justice. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked relevant evidence placed on record and, drawn factually incorrect and legally unsustainable inferences based on irrelevant and extraneous

PARTAP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

68 of the Act. The finding is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and wholly untenable apart from being arbitrary, unjustified, unreasonable and not in accordance with mandate of principles of natural justice. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has overlooked relevant evidence placed on record and, drawn factually incorrect and legally unsustainable inferences based on irrelevant and extraneous

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

section 68 are directed to be deleted. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO. 6017 DEL 2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 35. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s. RMP Holding (P) Ltd. wherein the assessee has raised similar grounds viz. challenging the validity of reopening u/s 147 and addition

GAUTAM THADANI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2004-05]

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the amount of Rs. 9,63,950/- by way of filing the valid documentary evidences as required by the revenue authorities. As per the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in spite of the various notices given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and his Company

SATENDRA KUMAR,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, ground no.1 and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Satendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer, H. No.60, Gali No.2, Mamura, Noida, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan:Arwpk 1280 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68 of the Act, and in consequently Satendra kumar levying tax at the rate of 60% along with surcharge at 25%. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the said amendment, being substantive and penal in nature, cannot be applied retrospectively to cash receipts or credits pertaining to the period prior to its enactment on 15th December

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

68 and 69C of the Act. The writ petition itself came to be filed on 22 April 2023 and when the matter first came up on 25 April 2023, the Court took note of similar challenges having been already entertained and provided that no precipitative action would be taken till further orders of the Court. Since submissions were also addressed

ADVANCE CHEMICALS ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , ROHTAK

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

272A(l)(d) of the Act and not in respect of order of assessment dated 12.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 58,71,781/- representing cash sales made by the appellant and declared as income

REVELATION UNIQUE RETAIL AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 3 13.12.2022. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessed, made deposits of Rs.17,70,12,272/-. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made additions of Rs.17,70,12,272/- and Rs.5,92,32,502/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA SHARMA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 3 13.12.2022. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessed, made deposits of Rs.17,70,12,272/-. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made additions of Rs.17,70,12,272/- and Rs.5,92,32,502/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal

ANSHUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Ansul Bansal, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Tax, Circle-3, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Auqpb8298M (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 03.12.2022. The copy of the satisfaction note was provided to the assessee on 13.01.2023. As per the submissions made by the assessee, during the year under consideration the assessee has derived income from salary and other sources. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessee and M/s Revelation Unique Retail

SANTUR BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,GREATER KAILASH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 77(1), TDS WARD, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

272a(2)(g) of the Act was also challenged. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/assessee, a real estate developer, was developing a housing project at Sohana, Gurugram. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Panchkula surveyed the office premises of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter, the ‘HUDA’) and Sky-High Land Construction

M/S. BONY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Before Suchitra Kamble

68,499/- 3. Q-3 31.07.2006 47 35,96,490/- 4. Q-1 24.05.2005 40 11,27,596/- 5. Q-2 15.12.2005 61 5,10,390/- 6. Q-4 25.10.2006 132 31,58,756/- In view of the aforesaid default, a show cause notice u/s 272A(2)(k)/274 read along with Section