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

bogus transactions were held to be non-genuine, he observed that purchases should have been added back u/s 69C of the Act and taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE in the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act dated 21.03.2023. However, the AO had added back only 0.50% of the transaction value u/s

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

bogus transactions were held to be non-genuine, he observed that purchases should have been added back u/s 69C of the Act and taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE in the assessment order u/s 153C of the Act dated 21.03.2023. However, the AO had added back only 0.50% of the transaction value u/s

SH. BRAHAM DEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

revision can be exercised only where no inquiry as required under the law is done. It is not open to enquiry in cases of inadequate inquiry.” 24 Assessment year: 2011-12 v) CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 “The provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

revised in the proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly set aside the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act and quash the same. In this view of the matter, there is no need to decide the issue on merit. However, we may note briefly that documentary evidences were filed

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

bogus purchases claimed to have been made from Sharma group of Rs.107 crore during the relevant assessment year 2008-09, was not sustainable in law. 6. Assessee challenged the impugned order both on the aspect of law and on merits stating that assessment made by Ld. AO does not fall within the provisions of Explanation 2(d) of Section 263

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

bogus purchases claimed to have been made from Sharma group of Rs.107 crore during the relevant assessment year 2008-09, was not sustainable in law. 6. Assessee challenged the impugned order both on the aspect of law and on merits stating that assessment made by Ld. AO does not fall within the provisions of Explanation 2(d) of Section 263

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

bogus purchases claimed to have been made from Sharma group of Rs.107 crore during the relevant assessment year 2008-09, was not sustainable in law. 6. Assessee challenged the impugned order both on the aspect of law and on merits stating that assessment made by Ld. AO does not fall within the provisions of Explanation 2(d) of Section 263

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

revised return on 8th March, 2022 declaring total income of Rs. 82,84,260/- and the said return of income was processed by the CPC, Bangaluru, wherein notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.06.2022 was issued and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 5th August, 2022 and 4th October, 2022 were issued but no reply

HALDIRAM SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit (Central), Village- Kherki Daula, Delhi Delhi-3, Room No. Jaipur Highway Basai Road, 325, 3Rd Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Jhandewalan Extn. Pan-Aaach0061R New Delhi-110055 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv & Ms. Ragani Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

bogus for which proceedings u/s 148 were initiated however, no enquiry or verification was made by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153C though the AO was aware of this fact since the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 were initiated only for this issue. 4. After considering the submissions filed by assessee in this regard, PCIT vide impugned

SHREE SAI CITY PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision proceedings under section 263 in such case is unsustainable. In support, various judicial decisions were also referred and relied upon, which has been incorporated at page 4 (para 2) of the impugned order. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT after 19 considering the entire gamut of facts, material on record as well as the submissions made by the assessee

SURYA IRRIGATION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision proceedings under section 263 in such case is unsustainable. In support, various judicial decisions were also referred and relied upon, which has been incorporated at page 4 (para 2) of the impugned order. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT after 19 considering the entire gamut of facts, material on record as well as the submissions made by the assessee

M/S. SNB ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision proceedings under section 263 in such case is unsustainable. In support, various judicial decisions were also referred and relied upon, which has been incorporated at page 4 (para 2) of the impugned order. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT after 19 considering the entire gamut of facts, material on record as well as the submissions made by the assessee

SSE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 2841/Del/2017 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Sai City Promoters & Developers Vs. Pr. Cit,8 Pvt Ltd, New Delhi H. No. 25 Block & Pockets C-3, Sector- 11, Rohini, Delhi Pan: Aajcs1878A (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision proceedings under section 263 in such case is unsustainable. In support, various judicial decisions were also referred and relied upon, which has been incorporated at page 4 (para 2) of the impugned order. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT after 19 considering the entire gamut of facts, material on record as well as the submissions made by the assessee

M/S. GLOBUS PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Goobus Projects Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2012-13-reg] 1. The search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 04.07.2012. Notice u/s l53A(l)(a) of the Act was issued on 29.11.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee in response

M/S. BESTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of the Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. Goobus Projects Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2012-13-reg] 1. The search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 04.07.2012. Notice u/s l53A(l)(a) of the Act was issued on 29.11.2013 which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee in response