ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Deemed dividend 72,18,132 72,18,132 Total addition 1,80,75,72,701 1,79,83,78,810 91,93,891 2,8,42,60,538 2,26,57,81,689 1,84,78,849 made On account of purchases

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SOLITAIRE REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

bogus transaction is not proved. It is only a suspicion and\npresumption of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the\nRevenue is dismissed.\n17. With regard to Ground No.4, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice\nrelevant facts from the assessment order, during assessment proceedings, the\nAO observed that the assessee has taken loan of Rs.10

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SOLITAIRE REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

bogus transaction is not proved. It is only a suspicion and\npresumption of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the\nRevenue is dismissed.\n17. With regard to Ground No.4, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice\nrelevant facts from the assessment order, during assessment proceedings, the\nAO observed that the assessee has taken loan of Rs.10

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-2 vs. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD.

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

bogus purchases? C. Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law on the facts of the case in adjudicating the addition made under Section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this respect before the Ld. CIT(A)? D. Whether, the Ld. ITAT has erred in law on the fats of the case

SOLITAIRE REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

bogus transaction is not proved. It is only a suspicion and\npresumption of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the\nRevenue is dismissed.\n17. With regard to Ground No.4, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice\nrelevant facts from the assessment order, during assessment proceedings, the\nAO observed that the assessee has taken loan of Rs.10

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. assessing officer/ Id. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in making adjustment of Rs.23,06,351/- on account of commission on standby letter of credit.” 3. Grounds No.1 of the concise ground (supra) is dismissed as not pressed in the wake of averments made

M/S. BHUSHAN STEEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus transaction is not proved. It is only a suspicion and presumption of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 17. With regard to Ground No.4, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice relevant facts from the assessment order, during assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has taken loan of Rs.10

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Deemed dividend 9,56,634/- 7. As against the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 the assessee has preferred three separate appeals before the CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made under unexplained purchases and also deleted the disallowance claimed under financial charges

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Deemed dividend 9,56,634/- 7. As against the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 the assessee has preferred three separate appeals before the CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made under unexplained purchases and also deleted the disallowance claimed under financial charges

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Deemed dividend 9,56,634/- 7. As against the assessment orders for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 the assessee has preferred three separate appeals before the CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made under unexplained purchases and also deleted the disallowance claimed under financial charges

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON vs. K.S.CHAWLA & SONS (HUF), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 6974/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Acit Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (Huf) 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Central Circle – I, Gurugram Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurugram Pan: Aadhk 7622 M

bogus purchases of Rs. 53 cr(approx) and miscellaneous income, all other offer of income is based on documents related to investment/expenditure during same period, which has been explained by the applicant through its fund flow statement. Hence, telescoping has to be allowed and during hearing even the department accepted the logic that both income and expenditure during same period

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDRA SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

Deemed dividend added back under section 2(22)(e)- Rs. 44,93,268/- (16) Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IB 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against all the additions and disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted all of them except sales tax penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SUBASH CHANDER SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

Deemed dividend added back under section 2(22)(e)- Rs. 44,93,268/- (16) Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IB 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against all the additions and disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted all of them except sales tax penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

Deemed dividend added back under section 2(22)(e)- Rs. 44,93,268/- (16) Denial of claim of deduction under section 80IB 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against all the additions and disallowances. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted all of them except sales tax penalty. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal

MANMOHAN SINGH SEHGAL,DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI -10, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 791/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Manmohan Singh Sehgal, Vs Pcit, C/O Ajay Arun Mehta & Associates, Delhi-10, Chartered Accountants, Shop No. 25, Dda Market, B Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abaps6153M Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

bogus purchases could had been made. 9. That the learned PCIT Delhi-10 had failed to appreciate that during the first round of assessment proceedings (which travelled upto ITAT), the sources of the funds were thoroughly examined.” 3 Manmohan Singh Sehgal 3. The pertinent facts of the appeal are as under:  Assessment u/s 143(3) has been completed

JAMALUDDIN S/O SHRI CHUNIR AHMED,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? 8. On 26.09.2019, notice was issued to the respondent-assessee in the instant case, which was duly accepted on the even date by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, who was present on advance notice. 9. Thereafter, on 21.07.2023, the matter was taken up for consideration and the order

JAMALUDDIN, GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act? 8. On 26.09.2019, notice was issued to the respondent-assessee in the instant case, which was duly accepted on the even date by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, who was present on advance notice. 9. Thereafter, on 21.07.2023, the matter was taken up for consideration and the order

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

dividend u/s 2(22)(e) 5,12,200/- iv) Bogus creditors 12,97,079/- v) Surrender on account of unverifiable creditors 100,00,000/- 4. On the aforesaid additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have also been initiated by the Assessing Office and vide penalty order dated 29.06.2012 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed