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)

154/-. It was accordingly submitted that total alleged commission payment for declared bogus purchase and sale is duly covered by the gross profit shown in the books of account on bogus sales which was never earned by them. 6.4 It was further submitted that the assessee has made bogus purchase and sale between their own concerns which comes

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)

154/-. It was accordingly submitted that total alleged commission payment for declared bogus purchase and sale is duly covered by the gross profit shown in the books of account on bogus sales which was never earned by them. 6.4 It was further submitted that the assessee has made bogus purchase and sale between their own concerns which comes

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)

154/-. It was accordingly submitted that total alleged commission payment for declared bogus purchase and sale is duly covered by the gross profit shown in the books of account on bogus sales which was never earned by them. 6.4 It was further submitted that the assessee has made bogus purchase and sale between their own concerns which comes

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)

154/-. It was accordingly submitted that total alleged commission payment for declared bogus purchase and sale is duly covered by the gross profit shown in the books of account on bogus sales which was never earned by them. 6.4 It was further submitted that the assessee has made bogus purchase and sale between their own concerns which comes

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)

154/-. It was accordingly submitted that total alleged commission payment for declared bogus purchase and sale is duly covered by the gross profit shown in the books of account on bogus sales which was never earned by them. 6.4 It was further submitted that the assessee has made bogus purchase and sale between their own concerns which comes

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)

154/-. It was accordingly submitted that total alleged commission payment for declared bogus purchase and sale is duly covered by the gross profit shown in the books of account on bogus sales which was never earned by them. 6.4 It was further submitted that the assessee has made bogus purchase and sale between their own concerns which comes

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

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

Section 44AB of the Act. As per the books, there was sale of Rs.5,17,05,63,370/- and purchase of Rs.5,18,27,26,557/-. There is no evidence to dispute or controvert any of these transactions. The total purchases of Rs.5,18,27,26,557/-, includes purchases of Rs.58,42,590/- made by the assessee from M/s Gaja

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

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

Section 44AB of the Act. As per the books, there was sale of Rs.5,17,05,63,370/- and purchase of Rs.5,18,27,26,557/-. There is no evidence to dispute or controvert any of these transactions. The total purchases of Rs.5,18,27,26,557/-, includes purchases of Rs.58,42,590/- made by the assessee from M/s Gaja

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

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

Section 44AB of the Act. As per the books, there was sale of Rs.5,17,05,63,370/- and purchase of Rs.5,18,27,26,557/-. There is no evidence to dispute or controvert any of these transactions. The total purchases of Rs.5,18,27,26,557/-, includes purchases of Rs.58,42,590/- made by the assessee from M/s Gaja

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus creditors the purchases remained unverified. The AO was required to disallow the purchases however no such addition was made by the AO; c) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding the purchases and sales made by the assessee; ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 13 d) That there is clear lack

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus creditors the purchases remained unverified. The AO was required to disallow the purchases however no such addition was made by the AO; c) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding the purchases and sales made by the assessee; ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 13 d) That there is clear lack

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus creditors the purchases remained unverified. The AO was required to disallow the purchases however no such addition was made by the AO; c) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding the purchases and sales made by the assessee; ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 13 d) That there is clear lack

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus creditors the purchases remained unverified. The AO was required to disallow the purchases however no such addition was made by the AO; c) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding the purchases and sales made by the assessee; ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 13 d) That there is clear lack

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus creditors the purchases remained unverified. The AO was required to disallow the purchases however no such addition was made by the AO; c) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding the purchases and sales made by the assessee; ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 13 d) That there is clear lack

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus creditors the purchases remained unverified. The AO was required to disallow the purchases however no such addition was made by the AO; c) That the Assessing officer conducted no enquiry regarding the purchases and sales made by the assessee; ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 13 d) That there is clear lack

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI PUNJAB vs. TAJ LAND DEVELOPEFRS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECTOR MOHALI PUNJAB

In the result, appeal is dismissed

bogus bills had been debited to the Profit & Loss Account was\nincorrect which is evident from the fact that the Id. CIT(A) in his order passed\non merits has found these bills to be relating to purchase of fixed assets and has\naccordingly, made the disallowance of only depreciation relating to the same,\nwhich has not been challenged

DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S HANSA TUBES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA 6/Chd/2019 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 06/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Hansa Tubes Pvt Central Circle-1, Ltd., 181/25, Industrial बनाम Chandigarh Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aaach7966H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') had made the addition of Rs. 1,85,23,135/- on account of bogus purchases. Further, an amount of Rs. 4,38,400/- in respect of agreement to sale and amount of Rs. 7,59,628/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made

M/S HANSA TUBES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA 6/Chd/2019 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 06/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. M/S Hansa Tubes Pvt Central Circle-1, Ltd., 181/25, Industrial बनाम Chandigarh Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aaach7966H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') had made the addition of Rs. 1,85,23,135/- on account of bogus purchases. Further, an amount of Rs. 4,38,400/- in respect of agreement to sale and amount of Rs. 7,59,628/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act was made