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)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

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)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

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)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

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)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

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)

section 69 being the commission paid on bogus purchase and sales by the assessee company. 26. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of alleged payment of commission on bogus purchase and sales forming part of the audited books of account wherein the assessee has already disclosed

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

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

purchases made from lender have been filed at APB 313. It has also been stated that apart from the loans taken from Fertichem Cotspin Ltd., too the assessee had also entered into the trading transactions and that for that also, the assessee had ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 73 maintained a separate trading account

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

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

purchases made from lender have been filed at APB 313. It has also been stated that apart from the loans taken from Fertichem Cotspin Ltd., too the assessee had also entered into the trading transactions and that for that also, the assessee had ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 73 maintained a separate trading account

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

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

purchases made from lender have been filed at APB 313. It has also been stated that apart from the loans taken from Fertichem Cotspin Ltd., too the assessee had also entered into the trading transactions and that for that also, the assessee had ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 73 maintained a separate trading account

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

90 Taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai) and PBA Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT(2017) 86 Taxmann.com 198 (Mumbai) wherein it has been held that “where assessee was found to have made bogus purchases from several hawala operators and those sellers were not found existing on given addresses, addition under section

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 as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel\nincluding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejua Rohit\nKumar reported in 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) and judgment in the case\nof Century Plyboard Pvt. Ltd. reported in 103 taxmann.com 179 (SC)\nand also the judgment in the case of Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported

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 as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel\nincluding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejua Rohit\nKumar reported in 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) and judgment in the case\nof Century Plyboard Pvt. Ltd. reported in 103 taxmann.com 179 (SC)\nand also the judgment in the case of Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported

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 as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel\nincluding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejua Rohit\nKumar reported in 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) and judgment in the case\nof Century Plyboard Pvt. Ltd. reported in 103 taxmann.com 179 (SC)\nand also the judgment in the case of Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported

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 as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel\nincluding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejua Rohit\nKumar reported in 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) and judgment in the case\nof Century Plyboard Pvt. Ltd. reported in 103 taxmann.com 179 (SC)\nand also the judgment in the case of Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

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

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

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

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)

bogus purchases and addition of Rs. 19,78,901/- was made which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that from all the three parties under consideration, the assessee had purchased the grit, sand and stone

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)

bogus purchases and addition of Rs. 19,78,901/- was made which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and against which, the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that from all the three parties under consideration, the assessee had purchased the grit, sand and stone

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.

90 to 100 km, it is hard to believe such transaction and it was held to be bogus purchases and addition was made. It was submitted that AO failed to appreciate that in copy of a/c, there were voucher number and there was no continuity of voucher number. Secondly, appellant had filed one certificate downloaded from website of Punjab Excise