DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. J M HOUSING LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7691/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, noting that it would not prejudice the assessee's right to challenge the CIT(A)'s action separately.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly restricted the Assessing Officer's disallowance of alleged bogus purchases from 100% to 12.5%. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 2,13,04,774/-. The assessee's corresponding sales and regular business activity were not disputed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases should be 100% or a reduced percentage. The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents on this matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv

For Respondent: Ms. Amish S Gupt, CIT DR

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 15.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7691/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. J M Housing Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, T/F 5, Pratap Bhawan, ARTO Complex, Sector 33 Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Noida- 201301 Central Delhi Uttar Pradesh New Delhi- 110002 PAN/TAN: AACCJ1692E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv. Department by Ms. Amish S Gupt, CIT DR. Date of hearing 15.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, the “CIT(A)”) Noida’s DIN & Order No. CIT(A) Kanpur-4/10685/2018-19 dated 25.01.2019, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.7691/Del/2025 2. It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the Revenue/appellant is aggrieved against the CIT(A) detailed lower appellate discussion partly restricting the Assessing Officers’ findings disallowing the assessee entire alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2,13,04,774/- to that @12.5% in question only.

Both the parties, vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in favour of the CIT(A) action partly disallowing the assessee’s alleged bogus purchase @ 12.5%. We make it clear that neither the learned Assessing Officer had disputed the assessee’s corresponding sales nor its regular business activity in the assessment order in question. That being the case, various judicial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.com 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT; (2024) 160 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.; (2025) 172 taxmann.com 283 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd; (2025) 178 taxmann.com 424 (Del. – Trib.) DCIT Vs. Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7691/Del/2025 decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well.

We accordingly are of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion restricting the impugned alleged bogus purchases disallowance to that @ 12.5% only in prinicple. The same stands confirmed with a rider that our instant adjudication shall not prejudice the assessee’s rights to independently challenge the CIT(A) action as per law, if so advised.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th April , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →