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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SANJAY 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

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act.\n\n3. Further, the assessee had also purchased two immovable\nproperties during the year under consideration amounting to Rs.\n36,55,000/- and Rs.2,24,17,500/-respectively.\n\n4.The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the\nreasons to believe that the assessee has claimed bogus

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases is assessable under the head "business or profession" and section 69 read with section 115BBE had wrongly invoked. That the Assessing Officer made the addition amounting to Rs.25,961.00 on account of alleged interest earned on the advances to different persons. During the course of survey operation cash was found excess in books of accounts however physical cash