ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price as mentioned in the registered sale deed. Further, the provision of section 69 cannot be invoked against the buyers only on presumption, in the absence of any evidence of money actually paid over & above the registered sale deed had been brought on record. (vii) The above judgments of various courts had held that the presumption available in section 292C

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PMK IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED , ATMA RAM HOUSE

Section 132(4A) and 292C of\nIncome Tax Act, it is presumed that any books of account or documents\nfound from premises of the assessee belong to him and that the contents\nof such books of account and other documents are true. Further, as per\nSection 292C of Income Tax Act, 1961, there is a valid presumption that\nthe books

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAJAT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

M/S MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 3115/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

transferred to a new customer. In that scenario, it would be justified on the part of the assessee to reflect the receipts as a liability in the balance sheet. But in absence of any details from the side of the assessee as and when these security deposit either got refunded/ adjusted, it partakes the character of income in the year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

transferred and registered in our favour, we shall have to incur a cost of Rs. 5.5 crores approximately on account of stamp duty without any tax incidence on the seller. Thus, the price of the property was requested by us to be considered and reduced to Rs. 95 crores. However, the 'said offer was summarily rejected by Mr. Sethia that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

transferred and registered in our favour, we shall have to incur a cost of Rs. 5.5 crores approximately on account of stamp duty without any tax incidence on the seller. Thus, the price of the property was requested by us to be considered and reduced to Rs. 95 crores. However, the 'said offer was summarily rejected by Mr. Sethia that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

transferred and registered in our favour, we shall have to incur a cost of Rs. 5.5 crores approximately on account of stamp duty without any tax incidence on the seller. Thus, the price of the property was requested by us to be considered and reduced to Rs. 95 crores. However, the 'said offer was summarily rejected by Mr. Sethia that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

292C can be drawn against the appellant. h) The property in question was purchased in F.Y. 2015–16, and the sub-lease deed was duly executed on 30.04.2015.The provisions of Section 56(2)(x) relating to the difference between stamp duty value and ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 consideration in the case of any other person(Company) were made applicable only from

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

292C can be drawn against the appellant. h) The property in question was purchased in F.Y. 2015–16, and the sub-lease deed was duly executed on 30.04.2015.The provisions of Section 56(2)(x) relating to the difference between stamp duty value and ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 consideration in the case of any other person(Company) were made applicable only from

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BPTP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

section 292C is rebuttable and the evidence furnished by the assessee shows that no adverse inference is called for in respect of these documents. (b) As for (b) the fact is that five plots were booked on 3.9.2005. On ascertaining, it has been found that the booking amount in respect of only one plot which was subsequently transferred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BPTP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

section 292C is rebuttable and the evidence furnished by the assessee shows that no adverse inference is called for in respect of these documents. (b) As for (b) the fact is that five plots were booked on 3.9.2005. On ascertaining, it has been found that the booking amount in respect of only one plot which was subsequently transferred

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

price of the flat. A final defence also has been taken that the case also does not qualify within the ambit of Section 149 of the Act, as there is no income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an 'asset', which has escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more and therefore, the notice issued under

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. YOGENDER SINGH , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

price of the flat. A final defence also has been taken that the case also does not qualify within the ambit of Section 149 of the Act, as there is no income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an 'asset', which has escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more and therefore, the notice issued under

YOGENDER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

price of the flat. A final defence also has been taken that the case also does not qualify within the ambit of Section 149 of the Act, as there is no income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an 'asset', which has escaped assessment amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more and therefore, the notice issued under