MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

bogus name lenders- Nexus between material and relief- reassessment proceedings valid. 3 Sterlite Inds. Ltd Vs ACIT [W.P. No. 27780 of 2007 & M.P. of 2007 decided on 12.03.2008](Madras) Reassessment notice based on information from Enforcement Directorate showing possible inflation of purchases was valid notice. 4. ACIT Vs Raj eshJhaveri stock broker [2007]291 ITR 500 (SC) If the assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED , TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

6. From the record it is observed that during the year assessee company made a turnover of Rs.11,18,37,31,543/- and purchases of Rs.106,17,50,291/- out of which assessee company has made purchases of Rs.42,78,844/- from M/s Viroo Mai Mulkh Raj 86 purchases of Rs.62,70,720/- from M/s Dashmesh Agro Exports only. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, TARN TARAN

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

6. From the record it is observed that during the year assessee company made a turnover of Rs.11,18,37,31,543/- and purchases of Rs.106,17,50,291/- out of which assessee company has made purchases of Rs.42,78,844/- from M/s Viroo Mai Mulkh Raj 86 purchases of Rs.62,70,720/- from M/s Dashmesh Agro Exports only. Further

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU vs. SH. PUNEET SEHDEV, PROP., JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

SH. PUNEET SEHDEV PROP;,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

PUNEET SAHDEV,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

133(6) to the parties to whom the sales were made and all of them had confirmed the transactions with the assessee; and (iii). the stock register was produced by the assessee, wherein quantitative details showing opening stock, purchases, quantity issued for production, production and closing stock were furnished with the A.O, who verified the same and did not give

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

section bars the allowability of unexplained expenditure. 21. On the same issue he further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of PCIT vs Drisha Impex Pvt Ltd dated 7th April, 2025 (ITA No 1240 with ITA No 2087 of 2018), and submitted that the entire purchase being bogus needs to be disallowed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

133(6) of the Act. Further, the fact that M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd was engaged in booking bogus sub contract expenses has already been established. It is observed that the assessee has shown to have received an amount of Rs 5.71.37,870/- from M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infraçon Pvt Ltd during the financial year

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

133(6) of the Act. Further, the fact that M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt Ltd was engaged in booking bogus sub contract expenses has already been established. It is observed that the assessee has shown to have received an amount of Rs 5.71.37,870/- from M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infraçon Pvt Ltd during the financial year

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S. BISHAN STEEL INDUSTRIES, AMRITSAR.

In the result the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

bogus purchase which is reproduced below: "In this case two party of purchase Mls Asian Tube Trading Company = 12330363 (Inclusive of VAT) from which total purchases made during the year, has retaliated with Mumbai sales-tax department to grab crores of rupees in sales tax. We have genuinely purchased the material from them at Mumbai branch &made the payment

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 , KAPUTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

133(6) related assessee for calling 8 Sham Sunder Aggarwal v. Pr. CIT information about the sellers (details are mentioned above), letter dated 20.12.2016, addressed to the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv), Jalandhar and another notice was issued to the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC), Aman Nagar, Kapurthala on dated 14.12.2016. Both the letters are kept

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

133(6) has returned unserved, ledger A/c of suppliers from whom goods purchased was not produced on the ground that the data is lost, no stock register maintained , total non cooperation of the assessee and all vital information, documents and paper works were missing, but in the instant case before us the assessee has produced evidences of purchase in course

JYOTI SAROOP GROVER PROP. MS SANT METAL INDUSTRIES SEKHU ROAD, WARD 7 MALOUT,PUNJAB vs. THE AO NFAC DELHI JURISDICTIONAL AO THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AMRITSAR, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

133(6) remained non-complied with or not Income Tax Returns were filed by these suppliers, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on these facts. The suppliers have duly reflected to sales made to the assessee in their respective GST returns. Therefore, these facts do not lend any assistance to the case of the revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR vs. SMT. JYOTI SAROOP GROVER, MALOUT

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

133(6) remained non-complied with or not Income Tax Returns were filed by these suppliers, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on these facts. The suppliers have duly reflected to sales made to the assessee in their respective GST returns. Therefore, these facts do not lend any assistance to the case of the revenue

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 , KAPURTHALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

bogus purchases of husk amounting to Rs.3,70,99,200/- during the year under consideration from some firms whose TINs were cancelled by the Sale Tax Department. To verify these facts, information from the Excise Department was called for under section 133(6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

133(6) of I.Tax Act returned back in the case of M/s Numro Uno Corporation (Purchase party) and M/s B.R. Industries Ltd, M/s Dausa Transformers Udyog P Ltd, M/s Nucon Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. (Sales parties). Further, inspite of being made aware to the assessee vide show cause dated 12.02.2013, no reply has been received till date from the following Purchase

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

133(6) were sent to two of the four creditors, their balances could not be doubted and, thus, ought to have been accepted. The first argument (a) only needs to be stated to be rejected. Even as stated by the ld. DR during hearing, it is not a case of estimation of income by the AO, necessitating invoking section

SMT. BANEET KAUR BHASIN,,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

133(6) of the Act were received back un-served from almost all the creditors in whose case addition has been made. The fact regarding non receipt of any information or the fact with regard to receipt of letters back undelivered was conveyed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any satisfactory reply from the assessee