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

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

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

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

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

credits u/s 68 of the act. However, discharged the burden casted upon it as discussed above, the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. has sufficient net worth and thus its creditworthiness cannot doubted. 7. Admittedly there is no change in the facts and circumstances regarding the issue of loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities

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

credits u/s 68 of the act. However, discharged the burden casted upon it as discussed above, the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. has sufficient net worth and thus its creditworthiness cannot doubted. 7. Admittedly there is no change in the facts and circumstances regarding the issue of loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities

DCIT, I.T.O. DELHI vs. RATHI STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2720/Del/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Chauhan Market, Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Madanpur Khadar, C. R. Building, I. P. Estate Near Shopping Complex, New Delhi Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76 Pan: Aaacr1435K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal Of The Revenue For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

price on ex-godown basis. To substantiate the above said reply, the assessee company had duly submitted complete details of sale of such defective materials (Refer Pg 638-646 of PB), from which it is evident that an aggregate of 326 items had been sold through the consignment agents. Further, the Ld. AO did not issue a valid show-cause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL AGRO CORP, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Global Agro Corp, Room No.1704, Plot No.07,1St Floor, E-2 Block, Central Market West Civic Centre, Avenue Road, New Delhi-110002. West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. Pan-Aakfg2650A Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Ca Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of 21.11.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10990/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In Export Of Rice & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 66,28,650/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee From Time To Time, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Wherein Following Additions Were Made:

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The AO is therefore directed to delete the addition. Ground no 5 and 6 are allowed.” 10. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has considered each and every fact in detailed manner and AO except doubting the sales for the reason that the details of the buyers was not submitted, without bringing

ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI vs. VINOD RICE MEAL PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

unexplained cash credit, it is open to the ITO to hold that it is the income of the assessee, the burden lies on the assessee to prove that the said cash credit represented the income from a source which has already been taxed. GROUNDS OF APPEAL In the present case the assessee company has proved all the three ingredients required

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. MAHAVIR SINGHAL, DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Vs. Mahavir Singhal Delhi 149, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.411/D/2025 (In Ita No.3428/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahavir Singhal Vs. Ito 149, Tarun Enclave, Delhi Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent)

price manipulation in the scrip of Kailash Auto so as to ascertain the violation of securities laws. Upon completion of investigation by SEBI, investigation did not find any adverse evidence/adverse findings in respect of violation of provisions of the PFUTP Regulations in respect of the following 244 entities (against whom direction were issued vide the interim order and/or confirmatory orders

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VNG IMPEX P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

transferred to Ward 26(1) and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee and in response, ld. AR of the assessee attended and submitted relevant information as called for. He submitted that however, the AO observed that the assessee has not produced books of account and vouchers during the assessment

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act which stood confirmed by ld. CIT(A). It is further observed that in order to establish the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the buyer namely M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd., assessee filed its confirmation and bank statement for the relevant period when funds were transferred to assessee and also filed

M/S STANCE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-32, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2791 & 2792/Del/2025 (Assessment Yearss 2016-17 & 2017-18)

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act which stood confirmed by ld. CIT(A). It is further observed that in order to establish the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the buyer namely M/s Vandam Technologies Pvt. Ltd., assessee filed its confirmation and bank statement for the relevant period when funds were transferred to assessee and also filed