ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act, made addition of Rs.6,76,00,000/- to the income of the assessee. Similarly

ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DLEHI vs. ZEXUS AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

68 is concerned, the nature of the transactions and the entries clearly show that no cash, in fact, flowed. It was further stressed that the transactions are above board. No outsider is involved. The entries were made in the books of the concerns of the same group. The shares in question were also of the companies of the group. There

ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Section 68 of the Income Tax act and is hereby added to income of assessee. Also tam satisfied that the assessee has furnished the accurate particulars of income therefore penalty proceedings us 271(1) c) is being initiated separately. 8. Further, from careful and vigilant reading of first appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) deleted

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock worth

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock worth

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock worth

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock worth

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

76) 11.11.2016 1,26,000 (68) 12.11.2016 1,23,000 (68) 13.11.2016 2,20,000 (68) 16.11.2016 60,000 (68) 16.11.2016 1,80,000 (68) 18.11.2016 2,40,000 (68) 19.11.2016 80,000 (68) 19.11.2016 30,000 21.11.2016 1,00,000(68) 23.11.2016 1,00,000(68

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BILLET PROCON PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad\Nand\Nshri S Rifaur Rahman\N\Nita No. 1382/Del/2017\Nनिर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13\N\Nito,\Nward-5(1), Room No.379,\N3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate,\Nnew Delhi.\Npan No.Aalfb8236G\Nअपीलार्थी Appellant\N\Nassessee By\Ndr. Kapil Goel, Adv.\N\Nrevenue By\Nshri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr\N\Nसुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing:\N27.05.2025\Nउद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On 25.06.2025\N\Nआदेश /Order\N\Nper C.N. Prasad, J.M.\N\Nthis Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals)-2, New Delhi Dated 30.11.2016 For The Ay 2012-13.\Nrevenue In Its Appeal Raised The Following Grounds: -\N\N1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,52,00,000/- Made By Ao U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act On Account Of Unexplained Credits In The Form Of Share Capital/Share Premium During The Year.\N\N2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Assessee Has Discharged The Onus Of Proving The Identify & Creditworthiness Of The Share Subscribers & The Genuineness Of The Subscription.\"\N\N2. Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, At The Outset, Submitted That The Assessee Filed Petition Under Rule 27 Of Itat Rules As A Defense Plea To Support Ld. Cit(Appeals) Order On Legal & Jurisdictional Grounds Raised Before The Ld. Cit(Appeals) But Was Rejected Vide Para 3.

68 is rejected.\"\n\n7. The assessee filed petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules to support the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order on legal ground which was rejected by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as stated above.\n\n8. We observed that whether the petition filed by the Assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules supporting the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

76,87,500/- FY 2016-17 b) Total cash deposit in bank Rs.19,12,59,500/- from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 4.3 a) Percentage increase between 28% 4.2(a) and 4.1(b) b) Percentage increase between -14% 4.2(b) and 4.1(b) c) Percentage increase between 168% 4.2(c) and 4.1(c) Cash Sales 5.1 a) Total cash sales

STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56(2)(viib) of IT Act in the case of the appellant on the premium of Rs. 19,90,00,000/- on the face value of Rs. 10,00,000/- of one lakh shares. During the appellate proceedings, appellant has agitated to the addition made by AO and submitted as under:- "Ground No. 3 -Proposed Illegal addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. M/S. Rudra Buildwell Homes Dcit, Central Circle-I, Noida Pvt. Ltd., 53, Okhla Phase, Delhi Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.106/Del/2025 [Arising Out Of Ita No.602/Del/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Rudra Buildwell Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-I, Homes Pvt. Ltd., Noida A-66, Sector-63, Noida Pan: Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Veersen Agarwal, Itp Department By Sh. Rajesh Chandra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.602/Del/2025 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2016-

76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant 4 | P a g e ITA No.602/Del/2025 & C.O. No. 106/Del/2025 sanction. Rather

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JRD STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to this

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The AO also made an addition of ` 76,82,551/- being the 1.5% commission

ACCIL CORPORATION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the Act. Thus, it is important to go through the details and examine the source of the money with the supporting evidence, which are placed by the assessee before us in the tabulated form, which is as under : ACCIL CORPORATION LTD. A.Y. 2012-13 Reconciliation of Shares Capital/Share Premium received during the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUTLEJ AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the IT Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions as mentioned in the written synopsis furnished by the ld. DR: (i). CIT v. MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258. (ii). CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd., 367 ITR 306 (del) (iii). Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 90 taxmann.com

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. STAR LANDCRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE RESIDENCY PVT. LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities