PUSHPA SALUJA vs. ITO WARD 45(4) NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 281 / 2024HC Delhi14 May 20242 pages
For Petitioner: KANISHK RANA
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal, framing questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 68 to bogus purchases and the quantum of addition. The ITAT's order is under challenge.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns additions made to the assessee's income based on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee argues that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable to such additions.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases. Whether the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases or only the gross profit margin should be added to the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 281/2024 & CM APPLs. 28758/2024 (Stay)

PUSHPA SALUJA

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Kanishk Rana, Adv.

versus

ITO WARD 45(4) NEW DELHI

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR

KAURAV

O R D E R %

14.05.2024

CM APPL. 28759/2024 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of. CM APPL. 28760/2024 (76 Days Delay in Refiling)

1.

Bearing in the mind the disclosures made, the delay of 76 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Application shall stand disposed of. ITA 281/2024, CM APPL. 28758/2024 (Stay)

3.

Notice. Since the respondent is represented by Mr. Rai, no further steps need be taken. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we take note of the principal ground on which the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’] is assailed. Learned counsel This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:32:14

submitted that the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’] would clearly be inapplicable, bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the additions were made in respect of alleged bogus purchases. The provision in question, it was submitted, can only apply to unexplained credit entries. 5. We, consequently, admit the appeal on the following questions of law:- A. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding the wrongful application of Section 68 of the Act on alleged bogus purchases? B. Whether the ITAT erred in upholding addition of entire amount of the alleged bogus purchases to the income of the appellant instead of only gross profit margin embedded in the purchases? 6. List again on 03.09.2024.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 14, 2024/ RW This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:32:14

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →