ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPREME PLACEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINTEX CONSUMERS ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

M/S GLOBUS REAL INFRA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELIGHT RESORTS P.LTD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STAR LIGHT CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUNLIGHT TOUR AND TRAVELS PVT. LTD., SAHIBABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKHNA STEEL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

money amounting to Rs. 5.6 of being heard crorse and Unsecured Loans of Rs. 2.995 crores) received from various parties by resorting to section 68 on the ground that the appellant company had allegedly failed to discharge its onus as mandated by the said section. 2. Jawahar Credit & 2012-13 N.A. As per the Revised Grounds of Holdings

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

unexplained money. It has been held in the following decisions that where the initial onus to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has been discharged by the assessee and the Revenue has not carried out any inquiry/ verification, or has not been able to controvert the evidence furnished by the assessee, no addition under section 68