DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

bogus purchase on the basis of statement of third parties\nrecorded on the back of the assessee where they have denied making any sales to\nthe assessee company and this information received by the AO was neither\ncorroborated nor verified by the AO, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court\nquashed the reopening of the assessment.\nThus, the reopening merely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus purchases could be\nused to decrease the profit element?\n7.\nWhether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)\nwas justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,92,51,910/- on account of\nbogus purchases and directing the AO to apply the G.P. rate @ 4% on the\nbogus purchases of Rs.1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus\npurchases of Rs.1,92,51,910/- by incorrectly relying on the judgment in the\ncase of M/s Pooja Paper Trading Co (P.) Ltd. [264 Taxman 260] - High Court of\nBombay and Geolife Organics Vs. ACIT [58 ITR(T) 297)-ITAT Mumbai.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute\nany of the aforesaid grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus\npurchases of Rs.1,92,51,910/- by incorrectly relying on the judgment in the\ncase of M/s Pooja Paper Trading Co (P.) Ltd. [264 Taxman 260] - High Court of\nBombay and Geolife Organics Vs. ACIT [58 ITR(T) 297)-ITAT Mumbai.\n8.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute\nany of the aforesaid grounds

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus purchases could be\nused to decrease the profit element?\n7.\nWhether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)\nwas justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,92,51,910/- on account of\nbogus purchases and directing the AO to apply the G.P. rate @ 4% on the\nbogus purchases of Rs.1

WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

bogus entries/transactions during the relevant year, which is actually unexplained income of the assessee company. The AO has further stated that the assessee company has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts and source of these funds routed through bank account of the assessee company. In the reasons recorded, it is nowhere mentioned as to who had given

DCIT,CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ADINATH TEXTILES LIMITED, LUDHIANA

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

bogus purchases:- a) Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs TejuaRohitkumar Kapadia in SLPNo.12670/2018 order dated 04.05.2018. b) M/s Supertech Forgings (India) Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 563/Asr/2018 orderdated 25.08.2021. Further the appeal of the department has even been dismissed by the Hon’blle Punjab & Haryana HC vide order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR vs. M/S AUSTEE HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

exemptions under the provisions of the IT Act. The orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer is contrary to the law, equity and justice and facts and material on record, devoid of jurisdiction arbitrary based on conjunctions and surmises. B That the impugned order (Annexure A- 2) passed by the Respondent No.5 is arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, bad in law and facts

M/S AUSTEES HYDRO POWER & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

exemptions under the provisions of the IT Act. The orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer is contrary to the law, equity and justice and facts and material on record, devoid of jurisdiction arbitrary based on conjunctions and surmises. B That the impugned order (Annexure A- 2) passed by the Respondent No.5 is arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, bad in law and facts

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

exempt in the hands of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we don’t see any infirminity in the action of the lower authorities as the factum of the receipt has not been disputed by the assessee and in absence of adducing necessary evidence explaining the nature and non- taxability thereof, the addition

SH. NARESH CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

exempt in the hands of the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we don’t see any infirminity in the action of the lower authorities as the factum of the receipt has not been disputed by the assessee and in absence of adducing necessary evidence explaining the nature and non- taxability thereof, the addition

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negi

bogus purchases and depreciation of Rs. 1,41,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) afterhearing the assessee, partly allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer holding that the assessee is entitled to the claim of exemption

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gain from sale of listed securities of the paper companies. 3.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold shares of M/s Maa Jagdambe between 29.09.2014 to 05.03.2015. Such shares were shown as purchased on 12.03.2013 through preferential allotment off-market and the assessee claimed exempt

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

bogus long term capital gain from sale of listed securities of the paper companies. 3.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold shares of M/s Maa Jagdambe between 29.09.2014 to 05.03.2015. Such shares were shown as purchased on 12.03.2013 through preferential allotment off-market and the assessee claimed exempt

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

exempted capital gains.\n(iv) That even assuming the purchase as genuine, the sales, given the\nhigh rates for such penny stocks, with no real buyers, are bogus

SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

bogus LTCG. All these relevant facts are narrated in the above discussion at one place or another. Thus, the explanation of the said credits in the books of the assessee (totaling Rs.83,57,578/- in the bank account No.4522500110230901 with Karnataka Bank, which is explained as proceeds of sale of shares thereby generating exempt LTCG amounting to Rs.80

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt LTCG. It is relevant

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt LTCG. It is relevant

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt LTCG. It is relevant