(2009) 29 SOT 53 (AHD) (URO) and HC Chandana (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

91 TTJ 243Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21610 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

Judgments citing (2009) 29 SOT 53 (AHD) (URO) and HC Chandana (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Ypa Restaurant Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 940/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sethi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 940/DEL/2024 [A.Y 2017-18] The A.C.I.T. Vs. YPA Restaurant Pvt Ltd Delhi N-86, First Floor, Outer Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN: AAACY 5668 D (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Sethi, CA Department By : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Thane dated…

ACIT (Central)-II, Bhopal vs. M/S. Fortune Soumya Housing, Bhopal

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

ITA 667/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…s of evidence found for one particular year especially when there was no incriminating evidence pertained to any other assessment year. Reliance is placed on:- (i) Royal Marwal Tobacco Products (P) Ltd (120 TTJ 387) (Ahd) (ii) H.C. Chandna (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (91 TTJ 243 (Del)) (iii) ACIT vs. Smt. Radha Rani (101 TTJ 1017 (JP)) (iv) ACIT vs. Ambica Food Industries Ltd. (110 TTJ 680 (Hyd)) (v) ACIT vs. M.M. Sales Agencies (97 TTJ 575 JP) 4.1.8 When no evidence was found for particular year, no addition on this account is to be made in the hands of the appellant. When the evidence is found the same is to be restric…

Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6242/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 144Section 14ASection 36

…A) further observed the assessee had offered profit on the set of purchases and sales transactions. He further held that in view of the decision in the case of Royal Marwar tobacco private limited (2009) 29 SOT 53 (AHD) (URO) and HC Chandana (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (91 TTJ 243 (Delhi)), an admission of bogus purchases in some earlier year cannot be extrapolated to the current year without any specific evidence in respect of the later year. 14. We are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that one cannot disallow the purchases on suspicion alone, while ignoring that the corresponding sales would have to be treated as bogus a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 144Section 14ASection 36

…A) further observed the assessee had offered profit on the set of purchases and sales transactions. He further held that in view of the decision in the case of Royal Marwar tobacco private limited (2009) 29 SOT 53 (AHD) (URO) and HC Chandana (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (91 TTJ 243 (Delhi)), an admission of bogus purchases in some earlier year cannot be extrapolated to the current year without any specific evidence in respect of the later year. 14. We are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that one cannot disallow the purchases on suspicion alone, while ignoring that the corresponding sales would have to be treated as bogus a…

(2009) 29 SOT 53 (AHD) (URO) and HC Chandana (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (91 TTJ 243) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax