SUDHIR JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

68 of the Act is not applicable at the time of hearing of the said appeals. Learned Departmental Representative has not cited the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra) as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissing the appeal filed against the judgement

SUSHMA JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

68 of the Act is not applicable at the time of hearing of the said appeals. Learned Departmental Representative has not cited the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra) as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissing the appeal filed against the judgement

MEENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

68 of the Act is not applicable at the time of hearing of the said appeals. Learned Departmental Representative has not cited the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra) as well as the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissing the appeal filed against the judgement

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOHAIL FINANCIALS LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Sohail Financials Ltd, Ward-9(1), C-19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs3643M (Appellant) (Respondent)

292, 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 CTR 34) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court-held that where assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

section 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee, as held by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 292

INTELLECTUAL SECURITES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 68 of the IT Act."(Emphasis supplied) Attention is further invited to the observation of the Kerala High Court in Bismillah Trading Co. vs. Intelligence Officer 248 ITR 292

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the assessing officer [CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 384 : (1994) 208 ITR 465] : • Proof of identity of the creditors; • Capacity of creditors to advance money; and • Genuineness of transaction This Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohd

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. JAGUAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the assessing officer [CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 384 : (1994) 208 ITR 465] : • Proof of identity of the creditors; • Capacity of creditors to advance money; and • Genuineness of transaction This Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohd

SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3103/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 241, Loha Mandi, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7938P Assessee By : Sh. M. S. Sekhon, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.09.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

68 in respect of increase in share capital of assessee- company, in view of fact that addresses of most of purported shareholders were identical and they could not be traced out despite notice issued under section 131, Tribunal was justified in confirming impugned addition. 11. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OPTIMA WEBTECH PVT. LTD,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Optima Webtech Pvt. Ward-13(4), New Delhi Ltd., 3775/3, Kanahiya Nagar, Tri Nagar, New Delhi Pan :Aaaco7509F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P.C. Gupta, Sr.Dr Respondent By None

section 68 of the Act for the share application money/share capital shown to be received by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.6,14,000/- under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ for the amount credited in the profit and loss account as sales. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

MARUDHARA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

68 in respect of increase in share capital of assessee-company, in view of fact that addresses of most of purported shareholders were identical and they could not be traced out despite notice issued under section 131, Tribunal was justified in confirming impugned addition 11. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292

PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX DELHI - 5 vs. MRS. ROWENA SHARMA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the assessing officer [CIT v. Precision Finance (P) Ltd., 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 384 : (1994) 208 ITR 465] : • Proof of identity of the creditors; • Capacity of creditors to advance money; and • Genuineness of transaction This Court in the landmark case of Kale Khan Mohd

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the Act and, in fact, has subsequently redeemed the non-cumulative preference shares during F.Y. 2014-15 which is much before the date of search, therefore, no adverse view should be taken. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also filed the following chart to substantiate that the AO in the orders passed u/s 143/153

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

section 68 of the Act and, in fact, has subsequently redeemed the non-cumulative preference shares during F.Y. 2014-15 which is much before the date of search, therefore, no adverse view should be taken. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also filed the following chart to substantiate that the AO in the orders passed u/s 143/153

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

section 68 of the Act in the hands of the appellant is wholly unwarranted, as held by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 292

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SENORITA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 68 6 CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292, 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407, 256 CTR 34) (Copy

M/S. ONE CITY PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. One City Promoters Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-13(4), New Delhi D-2, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaaco0322J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jitender Chaurisa, Company Secretary Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr

68 in respect of increase in share capital of assessee-company, in view of fact that addresses of most 9 of purported shareholders were identical and they could not be traced out despite notice issued under section 131, Tribunal was justified in confirming impugned addition. 7. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292

SMG ESTATES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 24(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1537/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 M/S Smg Estates (P) Ltd., Vs Acit, E-42, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Circle-24(1), South Delhi, Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics2351R Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Section 68 9. CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (30 taxmann.com 292. 214 Taxman 429, 350 ITR 407. 256 CTR 34) (Copy