SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares of M/s Quest Financial Services Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the transaction of sale of shares is not genuine but an arranged deal managed by the assessee. Page 29 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing

ITO, SAHARANPUR vs. SH. RITESH KUMAR GOEL, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

unexplained cash credit in the cash book of the assessee, he submitted that the assessee at the assessment stage could not properly corroborate as to why such an amount from his Current Account to individual SB account has been transferred and later on withdrawn and then after a lapse of time has been credited in the cash book without giving

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. SHIV SHANKAR RICE MILLS, GOGRIPUR ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act merely on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the details of the existence of the parties. 9.6. We also note that the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in relation to the sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. It is because the sales

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

credits were accepted as genuine. 3. That, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law as well as on facts in failing to appreciate that once on the independent enquiry made by the ld. AO, the creditors accepted the transaction, and there was no adverse material, ld. AO was legally obliged in law to accept the transaction

SARIKA TYAGI,GHAZIBAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZAIBAD

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

transfer of the unsecured loan amount. Looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that all the three limbs of a genuine cash credit ie identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness are well established. Therefore no adverse inference needs to be drawn in the matter of this cash credit. 6.5 The assessee company has furnished the following

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

transfer of the unsecured loan amount. Looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that all the three limbs of a genuine cash credit ie identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness are well established. Therefore no adverse inference needs to be drawn in the matter of this cash credit. 6.5 The assessee company has furnished the following

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUSHIL TYAGI, DELHI

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

transfer of the unsecured loan amount. Looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that all the three limbs of a genuine cash credit ie identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness are well established. Therefore no adverse inference needs to be drawn in the matter of this cash credit. 6.5 The assessee company has furnished the following

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

transfer of the unsecured loan amount. Looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that all the three limbs of a genuine cash credit ie identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness are well established. Therefore no adverse inference needs to be drawn in the matter of this cash credit. 6.5 The assessee company has furnished the following

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

transfer of the unsecured loan amount. Looking to the facts of the case, it is clear that all the three limbs of a genuine cash credit ie identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness are well established. Therefore no adverse inference needs to be drawn in the matter of this cash credit. 6.5 The assessee company has furnished the following

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:-

cash credit as income of the assessee for the year in which such credit is received. credit as income of the assessee for the year in which such credit is received. credit as income of the assessee for the year in which such credit is received. 19 Further, the first proviso to Section 68 which was introduced by the Finance

ATISH SINGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-43(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

transfer the money to SMFOOTWARE but the appellant did not furnished the nature of such payment with documentary evidence. Keeping in view the above facts, the circumstantial evidences do not support the contention of the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in several cases such as Sumati Dayal [1995] 214 ITR 801(SC) that while deciding any issue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA, DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 7 of the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

credit entries in the eight bank accounts opened in the names of 7 proprietary concerns belonging to Pawan Gupta (the appellant), Rishu Gupta (the son of appellant), Pramod Kumar Gupta (brother of appellant) and Gaurav Gupta (nephew of appellant) as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and assessed the same on protective basis. 2. 1% of the amount added

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 1.4 It is submitted that despite the aforesaid evidences, the learned Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of the appellant and also adverse action taken by the SEBI against the stock broker held that appellant had obtained accommodation entry from M/s P.K. Aggarwal & CO. and has introduced money

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 1.4 It is submitted that despite the aforesaid evidences, the learned Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of the appellant and also adverse action taken by the SEBI against the stock broker held that appellant had obtained accommodation entry from M/s P.K. Aggarwal & CO. and has introduced money

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 1.4 It is submitted that despite the aforesaid evidences, the learned Assessing Officer on the basis of the statement of the appellant and also adverse action taken by the SEBI against the stock broker held that appellant had obtained accommodation entry from M/s P.K. Aggarwal & CO. and has introduced money

KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals of the department as well as the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri C.M. Garg

unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. In response, the explanation of the assessee was that since the sales made to those two parties were also credited in the books of accounts, therefore, no addition should have been made on account of cash credits. The AO although accepted the above contention of the assessee but held that the sales

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

credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 presuming this to be unexplained cash received on account of issue of shares. This has perhaps happened because the AO did not comprehensively appreciate the facts of the matter. It is also important to appreciate that the appellant company was incorporated on 12.01.2012 and there was hardly

GUNJAN BHAGERIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

transferring the jurisdiction over the assessee from DCIT, Circle - 28(1), New Delhi to Central Circle 4, Delhi. 2.3 During revision proceedings u/s 263, the assessment record of proceedings u/s 143(3) was examined. Ld. PrCIT also observed that the assessing officer has allowed the assessee’s claim for exemption under the head long term capital gains. In the return