RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

PANCHSHEEL REALTECH PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

11,789/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.1,48,27,798/- in assessment year 2009-10 on account of bogus purchases made by appellant from various concerns. We find that in the immediately succeeding year i.e. assessment year 2014-15 in the assessment framed under section 143(3) the Assessing Officer has accepted net profit of Rs.2

PANCHSHEEL BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.,,NOIDA vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

11,789/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.1,48,27,798/- in assessment year 2009-10 on account of bogus purchases made by appellant from various concerns. We find that in the immediately succeeding year i.e. assessment year 2014-15 in the assessment framed under section 143(3) the Assessing Officer has accepted net profit of Rs.2

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

11. In order to resolve the main issue in controversy, it would be relevant to notice certain provisions of the Income-tax Act. The Explanation to section 37(1) is relevant and reads as follows : "37.(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

11. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 1,16,24,050/- on account of disallowance of purchases considering whole purchases amounting Rs. 4,64,96,203/- as bogus purchases whereas per assessee documents in support of genuine purchases has been duly submitted and AO has verified the said parties

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

11. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 1,16,24,050/- on account of disallowance of purchases considering whole purchases amounting Rs. 4,64,96,203/- as bogus purchases whereas per assessee documents in support of genuine purchases has been duly submitted and AO has verified the said parties

RR CARWELL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

11. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of Rs. 1,16,24,050/- on account of disallowance of purchases considering whole purchases amounting Rs. 4,64,96,203/- as bogus purchases whereas per assessee documents in support of genuine purchases has been duly submitted and AO has verified the said parties