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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

Section 68 of the Act, therefore, to the tune of Rs.2,33,18,873/- in the hands of the assessee on the ground that assessee has routed its own unaccounted money in the garb of unsecured loan in the name of related parties by way of journal entry. This includes the unsecured loan taken from one Pinki Goel

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act. The relevant observations made in paragraph 86 by the Tribunal read as follows : “86

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.

86 taxmann.com 148 (Gujarat). The brief facts of the said case are that the\n\nRespondent assessee, a company registered under the Companies Act was engaged in various businesses including manufacturing pharmaceuticals. For relevant assessment years, the assessee had filed the returns of income computing the same in terms of Section 115 JB. The AO issued notices for reopening

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

Appeal are allowed

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

68 of the Act as that tantamount to double taxation. It is submitted that double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

section 68. 16.1 Another allegation on the basis of which the impugned addition was Another allegation on the basis of which the impugned addition was Another allegation on the basis of which the impugned addition was made by the ld. AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is that M/s Click Cab the ld. AO and sustained

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MAGICAL INFOTECH (P) LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.1189/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Magical Infotech (P) Ltd. Ward-21(1), [Now Readystream Infotech (P) Ltd.] New Delhi T-336/B, Gali No.8, Near Ojha Dharamshala, Gautampuri, Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcm6581C

section-68 is definitely applicable. It is now a settled proposition of law that A.O. can lift the veil and enquire into the real nature of the transaction. The Purpose of examining the share holders was to get the first hand information but failure the part of assessee to produce them clearly proves that the evidence submitted

KAILASH PRASAD AGARWAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

86,500/- against the returned income of Rs. 5,72,720/- and made the additions. In appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find that in this case also AO has invoked the Section 68

MANISH AGARWAL HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

86,500/- against the returned income of Rs. 5,72,720/- and made the additions. In appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find that in this case also AO has invoked the Section 68

NITIN AGARWAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

86,500/- against the returned income of Rs. 5,72,720/- and made the additions. In appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find that in this case also AO has invoked the Section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ALLURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

68. The summary of CIT(A) findings in all the entities is separately enclosed in form of ANNEXURE A Page No 32 of this written submissions. 3. Issue No. 3(Ground No 3 of the lead case):- Reliance upon the statements I. Statements of Ashish Begwani and Nishant Chajjar recorded in theyears 2016 and 2017. II. Statement of Nishant Chajjar

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

68. The summary of CIT(A) findings in all the entities is separately enclosed in form of ANNEXURE A Page No 32 of this written submissions. 3. Issue No. 3(Ground No 3 of the lead case):- Reliance upon the statements I. Statements of Ashish Begwani and Nishant Chajjar recorded in theyears 2016 and 2017. II. Statement of Nishant Chajjar

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

68. The summary of CIT(A) findings in all the entities is separately enclosed in form of ANNEXURE A Page No 32 of this written submissions. 3. Issue No. 3(Ground No 3 of the lead case):- Reliance upon the statements I. Statements of Ashish Begwani and Nishant Chajjar recorded in theyears 2016 and 2017. II. Statement of Nishant Chajjar

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

68. The summary of CIT(A) findings in all the entities is separately enclosed in form of ANNEXURE A Page No 32 of this written submissions. 3. Issue No. 3(Ground No 3 of the lead case):- Reliance upon the statements I. Statements of Ashish Begwani and Nishant Chajjar recorded in theyears 2016 and 2017. II. Statement of Nishant Chajjar

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

68. The summary of CIT(A) findings in all the entities is separately enclosed in form of ANNEXURE A Page No 32 of this written submissions. 3. Issue No. 3(Ground No 3 of the lead case):- Reliance upon the statements I. Statements of Ashish Begwani and Nishant Chajjar recorded in theyears 2016 and 2017. II. Statement of Nishant Chajjar