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

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

bogus on account of cash payments made and non-maintenance of bills/vouchers. However, no incriminating material/evidence was found during the search proceedings in respect of these purchases. ITA Nos.4287 to 4289, 1499, 4290/Del/2018 ii) A disallowance of Rs.3,63,42,299/- has been made u/s 10B of I. T. Act by observing that the assessee failed to establish that

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

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

bogus entities, which are controlled and operated by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt. The Hon’ble High Court in their order dated 01/03/2019 observed that summons were received by the assessee and the period relevant to assessment year 2010-11 and, therefore, action to reopen the assessment for 2013-14 was bad in law. The Hon’ble High Court relied

M/S MRIDU HARI DALMIA PARIVAR TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Beena A. Pillai, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

purchased and held for a period of more than one year and, hence, were long-term capital assets, which the AO did not dispute. The assessee then argued that such shares, held as investment, were sold at prevailing 11 market rates. In support of this contention, the assessee furnished copies of Quotations of these shares for the dates on which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Vs. M/S. Koya & Company Construction Ltd. Central Circle 19, 12-2-831/38/1, 72 Migh, New Delhi. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad – 500 028 (Telangana). (Pan :Aacck3240R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Devdas, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

Purchase of goods 62,39,894 4. The assessee has maintained the TP documentation as prescribed under the Section 92D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and considered Transactional Net Margin Method as the "most appropriate method" under Section 92C(l) of the Act and has filed the accountants report in Form 3CEB as prescribed under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICHELIN INDIA TYRE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Sri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2007-08 Dcit, Circle 6(1) Vs. Michelin India Tyre Pvt.Ltd. Room No.413 401-404, 4Th Floor C.R.Building Copla Corporate Suits I.P.Estate Jasola District Centre New Delhi New Delhi 110 076 Pan: Aadcm8454G A.Y. 2007-08 Michelin India Tyre Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(1) 401-404, 4Th Floor Room No.413 Copla Corporate Suits C.R.Building Jasola District Centre I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 076 New Delhi Pan: Aadcm8454G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C(1) at the material time and such computation can be done only in the manner as is prescribed under the rule. The instant controversy narrows down to examining and deciding as to whether, RPM or TNMM is the most appropriate method in present circumstances. 12.2. Before ascertaining most appropriate method as may be applicable in present factual scenario

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

10B no comment for details is offered and against each clause Nil is -written ". Copy of audited report in the case of the Appellant as filed before AO is placed at pages 499 - 516 of the paper book. The auditors had correctly prepared their report. Section 13(3) ofl.T. Act had no application to the facts of-Appellant's case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. NIDHI SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase of jewellery. The ld. CIT(A) held that the AO has already considered as explained the jewellery of 2250 grms in accordance to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 pertaining to all male and female members of the family and has been reasonable enough to add only 1627.5 grms jewellery valuing Rs. 61,34,610/- and divided the same

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. JAIPAL SINGH SHARMA TRUST, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase of jewellery. The ld. CIT(A) held that the AO has already considered as explained the jewellery of 2250 grms in accordance to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 pertaining to all male and female members of the family and has been reasonable enough to add only 1627.5 grms jewellery valuing Rs. 61,34,610/- and divided the same

ANKIT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase of jewellery. The ld. CIT(A) held that the AO has already considered as explained the jewellery of 2250 grms in accordance to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 pertaining to all male and female members of the family and has been reasonable enough to add only 1627.5 grms jewellery valuing Rs. 61,34,610/- and divided the same

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. JAIPAL SINGH SHARMA TRUST, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase of jewellery. The ld. CIT(A) held that the AO has already considered as explained the jewellery of 2250 grms in accordance to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 pertaining to all male and female members of the family and has been reasonable enough to add only 1627.5 grms jewellery valuing Rs. 61,34,610/- and divided the same

AIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ANKIT SHARMA, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase of jewellery. The ld. CIT(A) held that the AO has already considered as explained the jewellery of 2250 grms in accordance to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11.05.1994 pertaining to all male and female members of the family and has been reasonable enough to add only 1627.5 grms jewellery valuing Rs. 61,34,610/- and divided the same

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

bogus and undisclosed income. Rs.1,80,000/- statedly paid as commission to arrange the gifts was added to treat Rs.61,80,000/- as undisclosed income. 14. Block assessment order refers to incriminating documents found and seized during the course of search and observed that the respondent /assessee had unaccounted business turnover of Rs.26,35,25,144/- from the six benami

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

purchased and therefore, the cost of acquisition of such goodwill in the hands of the assessee should be taken as nil. Once again the DR has erred in not understanding the scheme of amalgamation. In the order of the Hon’ble High Court itself it is clearly mentioned that anything paid over and above the net asset value