PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS, cash, cheque, etc. On the basis of the said papers, the assessing officer held that amount shown under column ‘cash’ was expenditure incurred outside the books of accounts. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS, cash, cheque, etc. On the basis of the said papers, the assessing officer held that amount shown under column ‘cash’ was expenditure incurred outside the books of accounts. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. S K INTEGRATED CONSULTANTS, DELHI

Section 69C of the said Act and the lower\nappellate authorities were right in their conclusions in deleting the said\naddition.\"\n\n5. In the case of the present assessee, admittedly, the details of contract\ncharges were provided by the assessee in the form of the names of the\ncontractors, their PANs, contact details, amounts paid and TDS

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145, which concerns are correct and complete account but which, in the opinion of the officer, does not disclose the true and proper income.” 35. Further at page number 53 the honourable Supreme Court further held that:- “it is not only the right but the duty of the assessing officer to consider whether or not the books disclose

MADHYAM BUILDTECH P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

TDS & service tax was deducted from payment of commission made, there was no doubt on source of expenditure, hence section 69C

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on ground no

69C instead of section 69. The Assessee only challenge the wrong and illegal addition U/s 69 of I. Tax Act as unexplained and undisclosed Investment. I.T.A.No.6578/Del/2018 2. That a legal question of law arise whether the action of CIT(A) justified for conversion of addition as made by AO under any wrong section which is challenge by the appellant

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s. 69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\n6.3 Mumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"In light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\n6.3 Mumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\n6.3 Mumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"In light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\n6.3\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"In light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

section 69C were strongly\nrestore by the AO for making this addition.\n\"\nIn light of the above, we find that no addition could\nhave been made u/s.69 C of the Act.\nIn the case Prabhat Gupta v. ITO – 2017(12) TMI 1667 – ITAT\n6.3\nMumbai, disallowance of purchase could not be made on the ground\nthat notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, HISAR vs. AJAY KUMAR, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2022-23 is dismissed

sections": [ "69C", "133(6)", "37", "145(3)" ], "issues": "Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer for alleged bogus purchases and non-deduction of TDS