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

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

bogus bills of purchase\n(cotton purchases) to the beneficiary companies/entities who in turn purchase\nthe raw material in cash from other persons. The modus operandi involved in\nthese cases is that these proprietary concerns receive payments from the\nbeneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK\nTRASNFERS/ and the amount is immediately withdrawn as cash and returned to\nthe

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 purchase (cotton purchases) to the beneficiary companies/entities who in turn purchase the raw material in cash from other persons. The modus operandi involved in these cases is that these proprietary concerns receive payments from the beneficiary companies through various modes like RTGS/ CHEQUES/BANK TRASNFERS/ and the amount is immediately withdrawn as cash and returned to the beneficiaries

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. APEEJAY EDUCATION SOCIETY, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negi

bogus purchase and disallowance of depreciation apart from addition u/s 11(5) of the Act, holding the software purchase from

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

purchases shown from such sundry creditors were also held to be doubtful. The AO observed that the assessee had shown bogus debtors and creditors to book bogus loss. Moreover, since the assessee had also failed to produce the books of accounts, it was concluded that the assessee had declared huge loss just to adjust the income surrendered at the time

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

purchases shown from such sundry creditors were also held to be doubtful. The AO observed that the assessee had shown bogus debtors and creditors to book bogus loss. Moreover, since the assessee had also failed to produce the books of accounts, it was concluded that the assessee had declared huge loss just to adjust the income surrendered at the time

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

purchases shown from such sundry creditors were also held to be doubtful. The AO observed that the assessee had shown bogus debtors and creditors to book bogus loss. Moreover, since the assessee had also failed to produce the books of accounts, it was concluded that the assessee had declared huge loss just to adjust the income surrendered at the time

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

purchases shown from such sundry creditors were also held to be doubtful. The AO observed that the assessee had shown bogus debtors and creditors to book bogus loss. Moreover, since the assessee had also failed to produce the books of accounts, it was concluded that the assessee had declared huge loss just to adjust the income surrendered at the time

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

purchases shown from such sundry creditors were also held to be doubtful. The AO observed that the assessee had shown bogus debtors and creditors to book bogus loss. Moreover, since the assessee had also failed to produce the books of accounts, it was concluded that the assessee had declared huge loss just to adjust the income surrendered at the time

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

purchases shown from such sundry creditors were also held to be doubtful. The AO observed that the assessee had shown bogus debtors and creditors to book bogus loss. Moreover, since the assessee had also failed to produce the books of accounts, it was concluded that the assessee had declared huge loss just to adjust the income surrendered at the time

DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

purchase of capital assets and the documents available with the assessee were furnished before the ld CIT(A) which were sufficient enough to ensure that the capital addition done by the assessee was genuine and not bogus. It was accordingly submitted that the disallowance of depreciation

M/S GOLD STAR AMCO STEELS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1, LUDHIANA

In the results, the book results as duly audited need to be accepted and the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

Bench: 30Th Of September 2013 And, As Such, Framing Of Assessment By The Assessing Officer Without Observing Mandatory

purchase of capital assets and the documents available with the assessee were furnished before the ld CIT(A) which were sufficient enough to ensure that the capital addition done by the assessee was genuine and not bogus. It was accordingly submitted that the disallowance of depreciation

M/S SEL MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase of Rs. 8,13,85,737/-. 2. The following Additional Ground has also been raised: “That the order dated 29.12.2018 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as the same has been passed

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

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

purchases made or commission paid was bogus, assessment order could not have been set aside under section 263. 12.8 Reliance was further placed on order of this Bench in case of Pawan Kumar Vs. ITO reported in (2022)142 taxmann.com 13 (Chandigarh Tribunal) wherein it has been held – Income Tax inferences INCOME TAX : Where Principal Commissioner passed revision order under

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

purchase of raw material of Rs. 27.42 crores. For all such years, net profit has been shown as Nil (for FY 2013-14 Rs. 59 lakhs). Moreover, for none of the years there is no employee's cost, administrative expenses, depreciation, etc. Ongoing through the balance sheet of Maa Jagdambe, it is observed that it has no assets

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

purchase of raw material of Rs. 27.42 crores. For all such years, net profit has been shown as Nil (for FY 2013-14 Rs. 59 lakhs). Moreover, for none of the years there is no employee's cost, administrative expenses, depreciation, etc. Ongoing through the balance sheet of Maa Jagdambe, it is observed that it has no assets