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

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

bogus purchases. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 5 3. The sales have been confirmed meaning thereby you have purchased cotton from the open market in cash. The purchases being made in cash from open market, the applicability of provision of Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore

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

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

bogus purchases. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 5 3. The sales have been confirmed meaning thereby you have purchased cotton from the open market in cash. The purchases being made in cash from open market, the applicability of provision of Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore

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

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

bogus purchases. ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 5 3. The sales have been confirmed meaning thereby you have purchased cotton from the open market in cash. The purchases being made in cash from open market, the applicability of provision of Section 40A(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should have been examined. Therefore

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 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

purchases solely on a statement made by only one party recorded under section 131 without adducing evidence of other necessary parties, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus

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

131(1)(A) of the Act.\nAccording to the Revenue, Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has\ndisclosed in his statement that he is providing accommodation\nentries to various concerns, therefore, the AO harboured a\nbelief that purchases alleged to have been made from the\nconcern of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta are bogus and he\nreopened the assessment. The AO has heard

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases. At the same time, given the discrepancies noted by the Assessing Officer during verification and the assessee's failure to furnish certain 886-CHD-2024 17 supporting evidence, such as bank statements and signed supplier confirmations, the possibility of purchases from the grey market cannot be ruled out. Further failure to produce the brokers and standard reply that

MADHAV KRG LIMITED,PATIALA vs. DCIT C C, PATIALA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 291/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Madhav Krg Limited, Dcit, Vill. Akalgarh, Amloh, बनाम Central Circle, Bhadson Road, Patiala Vs. Near Roll Plaza, Distt. Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm6458N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashok Goel, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 आदेश/Order

131 (1A) of the act on 18.12.2017 before the Asst. director of income tax (Investigation)-1, Faridabad. In the said statement, Sh. Pawan Mishra has stated on oath that he is the proprietor of numerous concerns whose registered address is the same. The details of such proprietorship concerns are as under:- 291-Chd-2023 Madhav KRG Ltd., Patiala

MITHU RAM,DIRBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SUNAM

In the result, ground no. 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Cit(A) Proves This Fact. 2. That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient & Reasonable Cause In Not Attending To The Proceedings Before The Cit(A) Due Oversight/ Skip Of Mail Regarding The Date Of Hearing Because Busy In Filling The Income Tax Returns.

section 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that AO erred in law by making an addition of Rs.25.60,798/- on whimsical observation, whereas appellant had filed the confirmed copy of account. It was stated that appellant had made purchase of goods on credit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW LIBRA KOTHI, RAILWAY ROAD, SIRHIND vs. BHAGWAN DASS, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

131 were served, no compliance was made. Based on these\nfindings, the AO held that the alleged suppliers were not genuine and that the\npurchases were fictitious, warranting disallowance of the entire amount of Rs.\n5,07,64,711/-.\n3.4 The AO further compared the assessee's purchase data with the GST data\navailable with the Department. While the assessee

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

purchase of land, the Commission\nof Income-Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both have examined the issue on\nthe basis of the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee had\nmade no disclosure towards the purchase of land in his statement during the\nsearch proceedings. The addition was made merely on the basis

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

purchased, the addition in this regard\non the basis of Valuation Report by the DVO is not sustainable. [Para 50]\n(ix) 2015 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVERSUS NISHI MEHRA, ARUN MEHRA, SUSHIL MEHRA, SUBHASH MEHRA,\nSURBHI MEHRA, MANJU MEHRA\nScope, power and jurisdiction of AO in block assessment proceedings and the term\n\"undisclosed