DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

Cash payment in the name of “OMASUM-DELHI.” 47. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. CIT-DR that the addition on account bogus purchases are based on any incriminating material/evidence found during the course of search. 48. Now, coming to the addition on account of under- invoicing of export sales

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

Cash payment in the name of “OMASUM-DELHI.” 47. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. CIT-DR that the addition on account bogus purchases are based on any incriminating material/evidence found during the course of search. 48. Now, coming to the addition on account of under- invoicing of export sales

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

Cash payment in the name of “OMASUM-DELHI.” 47. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. CIT-DR that the addition on account bogus purchases are based on any incriminating material/evidence found during the course of search. 48. Now, coming to the addition on account of under- invoicing of export sales

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

Cash payment in the name of “OMASUM-DELHI.” 47. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. CIT-DR that the addition on account bogus purchases are based on any incriminating material/evidence found during the course of search. 48. Now, coming to the addition on account of under- invoicing of export sales

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

purchases of jewellery during the festive season. 21 I.T.A. No. 352/Del/2021 10.4 On a similar issue the ITATChandigarh Third Member Bench in the case ofBansal Rice Mills (supra) held that " since the sales proceeds have already been accounted for in the trading account no addition could be sustained even if the said deposits could be treated as bogus sales

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. NAGPAL FABRICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Dcit Vs Nagpal Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-Ii 697 Katra Neel Chandni Noida. Chowk, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aabcn9620F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govind Agarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024

cash sales made during demonetization period Assessing Officer being not satisfied with sald explanation treated deposits as bogus deposits Commissioner (Appeals) upheld additions made by Assessing Officer without appreciating facts It was noted that revenue authorities had accepted opening stock, closing stock, purchases

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

bogus purchases (being 25% of purchases from alleged related parties) (2) 88,31,23,282 65,25,24,882 179,46,43,20 7 2,67,93,04,39 7 2,99,56,36,93 0 1,21,763 Addition u/s 68 on a/c of cash deposited

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit to the bank of the assessee treating the same as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that salary received from M/s Arihant Associates during the year was declared in the return of income as salary income. He further stated that assessee took employment, with

ZIA RATHI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-44(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalmrs. Zia Rathi, Income Tax Officer, 274, Dda Flats, Sector-1A, Ward-44(3), Dwarka Nasirpur, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Bsvpr9218M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short) Dated 27.02.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 15/11146/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S Veezee Traders Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Pvc Coated Imported Fabric. The Zia Rathi Vs. Ito

purchase, corresponding freight charges incurred month wise, month wise power and fuel expenses and month wise selling expenses in the form of rebate and discount. The assessee also furnished the quantitative details of goods month wise for rice, sugar, chana dal and wheat flour before the Assessing Officer. All these facts clearly go to prove the genuineness claim made