VISHAL KASHYAP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 should not be invoked against the stated LTCG exemption claimed by assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act (dated 02/12/2016). At para 3.8 of assessment order on mere basis of credit in bank a/c of Rs 40,40,275

PREM RATTAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 should not be invoked against the stated LTCG exemption claimed by assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act (dated 02/12/2016). At para 3.8 of assessment order on mere basis of credit in bank a/c of Rs 40,40,275

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

275,60,99,20 3,20,95,13,24 3,91,65,16, 2,72,01,37,4 2022:DHC:234-DB ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 8 of 53 (1+2+3+4) 8 0 5 712 01 AY Addition u/s 68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

275,60,99,20 3,20,95,13,24 3,91,65,16, 2,72,01,37,4 2022:DHC:234-DB ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 8 of 53 (1+2+3+4) 8 0 5 712 01 AY Addition u/s 68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

275,60,99,20 3,20,95,13,24 3,91,65,16, 2,72,01,37,4 2022:DHC:234-DB ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 8 of 53 (1+2+3+4) 8 0 5 712 01 AY Addition u/s 68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

275,60,99,20 3,20,95,13,24 3,91,65,16, 2,72,01,37,4 2022:DHC:234-DB ITA No.68/2021 & connected matters Page 8 of 53 (1+2+3+4) 8 0 5 712 01 AY Addition u/s 68 on a/c of share capital/ premium & alleged commission expenses @ 2% thereon Disallowance on a/c of alleged bogus

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

68 of the IT Act 1961). As the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the parties, who gave the unsecured loan and paid cash to the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge primary onus as incomplete address was provided without other details. In view of this, Ld. CIT (A) erred in fact

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

68 of the I.T Act being share capital received as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions of share capital ? 2 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds

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

Section 68 of the Act which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. At the time of the hearing of the matter the Ld. Sr. Counsel Sh. Ajay Wadhwa appearing for the assessee while arguing in support of the case submitted that before the First Appellate Authority the sale invoices containing invoice No., date, party name, address

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DUGGAL & SONS BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 153A of the 89 ITA.No.1813/Del./2019 Shri Sanjay Duggal, Faridabad etc., & 51batch appeals Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer also rightly passed the assessment order under section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, Section 153D of the Income Tax Act provides that “no order of assessment or reassessment shall

DUGGAL & SONS BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 153A of the 89 ITA.No.1813/Del./2019 Shri Sanjay Duggal, Faridabad etc., & 51batch appeals Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer also rightly passed the assessment order under section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, Section 153D of the Income Tax Act provides that “no order of assessment or reassessment shall