CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

11(1)(a) of the Act were absent in the case of the assessee, hence the argument of the assessee that the same were utilized for the objects of the trust has no legs to stand. 5.12 Ld. Pr. CIT observed that applying the test for continuance of registration under section 12AA of the Act, it was apparent that

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

11(1)(a) of the Act were absent in the case of the assessee, hence the argument of the assessee that the same were utilized for the objects of the trust has no legs to stand. 5.12 Ld. Pr. CIT observed that applying the test for continuance of registration under section 12AA of the Act, it was apparent that

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

11(1)(a) of the Act were absent in the case of the assessee, hence the argument of the assessee that the same were utilized for the objects of the trust has no legs to stand. 5.12 Ld. Pr. CIT observed that applying the test for continuance of registration under section 12AA of the Act, it was apparent that

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

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

1% on total amount of bogus purchase and sale amounting to Rs. 17,85,59,558/- which comes to Rs. 17,85,596/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 6.3 In response, the assessee submitted that they have paid commission at the rate of 0.25% on total bogus purchase and sale which

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

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

1% on total amount of bogus purchase and sale amounting to Rs. 17,85,59,558/- which comes to Rs. 17,85,596/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 6.3 In response, the assessee submitted that they have paid commission at the rate of 0.25% on total bogus purchase and sale which

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

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

1% on total amount of bogus purchase and sale amounting to Rs. 17,85,59,558/- which comes to Rs. 17,85,596/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 6.3 In response, the assessee submitted that they have paid commission at the rate of 0.25% on total bogus purchase and sale which

M/S SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

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

1% on total amount of bogus purchase and sale amounting to Rs. 17,85,59,558/- which comes to Rs. 17,85,596/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 6.3 In response, the assessee submitted that they have paid commission at the rate of 0.25% on total bogus purchase and sale which

SEO LEHENGA HOUSE,JAGRAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE(3) , LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

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

1% on total amount of bogus purchase and sale amounting to Rs. 17,85,59,558/- which comes to Rs. 17,85,596/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 6.3 In response, the assessee submitted that they have paid commission at the rate of 0.25% on total bogus purchase and sale which

SEO BRIDAL STUDIO PVT LTD,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 3,4,5 & 6(a) are dismissed as not pressed and ground no

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

1% on total amount of bogus purchase and sale amounting to Rs. 17,85,59,558/- which comes to Rs. 17,85,596/- should not be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. 6.3 In response, the assessee submitted that they have paid commission at the rate of 0.25% on total bogus purchase and sale which

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

11 given address and the purchases shown by the assessee to have been made from the said firm, were bogus purchases, which purchases, amounting to Rs.58,42,492/- should have been disallowed by the AO as bogus purchases, which was not done; that the ld. PCIT has also correctly observed that though the assessee made cash purchases from the open

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

11 given address and the purchases shown by the assessee to have been made from the said firm, were bogus purchases, which purchases, amounting to Rs.58,42,492/- should have been disallowed by the AO as bogus purchases, which was not done; that the ld. PCIT has also correctly observed that though the assessee made cash purchases from the open

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

11 given address and the purchases shown by the assessee to have been made from the said firm, were bogus purchases, which purchases, amounting to Rs.58,42,492/- should have been disallowed by the AO as bogus purchases, which was not done; that the ld. PCIT has also correctly observed that though the assessee made cash purchases from the open

MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, VILLAGE MANSOORWAL, TEHSIL ZIRA HEAD OFFICE, OLD CANTT ROAD, FARIDKOT,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 stood deleted in first appeal. Similar arguments were made for addition of unaccounted expenditure of Rs.940.75 Lacs. The Ld. AR also referred to the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition of alleged out-of-books 24 sales

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, TEHSIL ZIRA, FARIDKOT -151203, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 stood deleted in first appeal. Similar arguments were made for addition of unaccounted expenditure of Rs.940.75 Lacs. The Ld. AR also referred to the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition of alleged out-of-books 24 sales

OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. DCIT, CENTRE CIRCLE-2, , LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 stood deleted in first appeal. Similar arguments were made for addition of unaccounted expenditure of Rs.940.75 Lacs. The Ld. AR also referred to the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition of alleged out-of-books 24 sales

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. OM SONS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, QUILA CHOWK

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 stood deleted in first appeal. Similar arguments were made for addition of unaccounted expenditure of Rs.940.75 Lacs. The Ld. AR also referred to the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition of alleged out-of-books 24 sales

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 bills of purchases to the beneficiaries company. Basis the same, reasons were recorded by the AO that income to the extent of Rs. 2,29,15,034/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and another notice under section 148 was issued on 31/03/2018 which was served on the assessee on the said date

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A