VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

purchases held to be bogus. (ii) That the Id. Pr.CIT has erred ignoring the fact that the assessee having declared the bogus sales also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

purchases held to be bogus. (ii) That the Id. Pr.CIT has erred ignoring the fact that the assessee having declared the bogus sales also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

u/s 115JB. Further assessee has sought to exclude/include certain provisions written back /created from the computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The claim for exclusion/inclusion of such items in computation of book profits was made by the assessee before lower authorities. However the lower authorities did not entertain the additional claim of the assessee. The items sought

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

u/s 115JB. Further assessee has sought to exclude/include certain provisions written back /created from the computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The claim for exclusion/inclusion of such items in computation of book profits was made by the assessee before lower authorities. However the lower authorities did not entertain the additional claim of the assessee. The items sought

JRD STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

purchase transactions recorded in the books were mere accommodation entries. 2. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27th November, 2002, held that the assessee had earned commission @ 1.5% from the said transactions on the turnover of Rs.1,04,76,94,004/-. Undisclosed income of Rs.1.57 crores as commission earned was assessed. In the first appeal, Commissioner of Income

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest u/s 234A of the Act. (ii) That the re-computation of interest u/s 234A

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest u/s 234A of the Act. (ii) That the re-computation of interest u/s 234A

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases also, enhancement will lead to double taxation of the same income. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred both on facts and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest u/s 234A of the Act. (ii) That the re-computation of interest u/s 234A

SHRI SUBHASH TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

154 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) dated 14.06.2019 for the purposes of initiating and continuing proceedings under Section 271AAB of the Act 4 ITA No.1342, 1044/Del/2021 & CO No.59/Del/2023 instead of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUBHASH TYAGI PROP. M/S KRISHANA CONSTRUCTION, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

154 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) dated 14.06.2019 for the purposes of initiating and continuing proceedings under Section 271AAB of the Act 4 ITA No.1342, 1044/Del/2021 & CO No.59/Del/2023 instead of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

rectification urging the Tribunal to decide the issues on merits and not only on limitation, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee approached the High Court and sought a reference. High Court refused to call for a reference. Supreme Court confirmed the view rejecting the assessee's contention that the order of adjudicating authority having merged with that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

rectification urging the Tribunal to decide the issues on merits and not only on limitation, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The assessee approached the High Court and sought a reference. High Court refused to call for a reference. Supreme Court confirmed the view rejecting the assessee's contention that the order of adjudicating authority having merged with that

ARUN ENTERPRISES,GHAZIABAD vs. PR,CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus expenses, cash payment for purchase of property and further cash book revealed cash payment made in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. A perusal of the record and assessment order shows that there is neither unexplained credit in the books of account nor there is any unexplained investment/unexplained money/unexplained expenditure. Therefore, the provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

rectification request protesting addition of payments made by it which 5 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 was debited amounts in the appellant’s bank, as addition u/s 68. The AO passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 on 19.05.2022, rejecting the appellant’s request. 5.6. In the present appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

rectification request protesting addition of payments made by it which 5 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 was debited amounts in the appellant’s bank, as addition u/s 68. The AO passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 on 19.05.2022, rejecting the appellant’s request. 5.6. In the present appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

rectification request protesting addition of payments made by it which 5 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 was debited amounts in the appellant’s bank, as addition u/s 68. The AO passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 on 19.05.2022, rejecting the appellant’s request. 5.6. In the present appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

rectification request protesting addition of payments made by it which 5 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 was debited amounts in the appellant’s bank, as addition u/s 68. The AO passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 on 19.05.2022, rejecting the appellant’s request. 5.6. In the present appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. BHIKSHU PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

rectification request protesting addition of payments made by it which 5 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 was debited amounts in the appellant’s bank, as addition u/s 68. The AO passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 on 19.05.2022, rejecting the appellant’s request. 5.6. In the present appeal

ACHLA MALHOTRA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

rectification request protesting addition of payments made by it which 5 | P a g e ITA No.4205, 4206, 4207, 4251 & 4252/Del/2025 C.O. Nos. 214 to 218/Del/2025 was debited amounts in the appellant’s bank, as addition u/s 68. The AO passed an order u/s 154 r.w.s. 147 on 19.05.2022, rejecting the appellant’s request. 5.6. In the present appeal