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 bills for purchases in the year under consideration and only after taking into consideration the explanation given by the director of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer made an addition only on account of commission on the entries relating to purchases. 12. An addition of Rs.79,982/- was made by the Assessing Officer in his order dated

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 bills for purchases in the year under consideration and only after taking into consideration the explanation given by the director of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer made an addition only on account of commission on the entries relating to purchases. 12. An addition of Rs.79,982/- was made by the Assessing Officer in his order dated

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ENRICH AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchases to the extent of Rs.1,73, 02,120 from M/s R K Trading & Co, Bhagwati Enterprises, M/s Rolex Trading Co. and M/s Raohika Enterprises during the relevant Assessment year. Such inference is drawn on the basis of the inquiry Trading House Rakesh Agarwal & Co. and this is dealt in paragraph 4 of the AO's order. During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. ENRICH AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchases to the extent of Rs.1,73, 02,120 from M/s R K Trading & Co, Bhagwati Enterprises, M/s Rolex Trading Co. and M/s Raohika Enterprises during the relevant Assessment year. Such inference is drawn on the basis of the inquiry Trading House Rakesh Agarwal & Co. and this is dealt in paragraph 4 of the AO's order. During

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

bogus purchases were liable for disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act as they were not incurred for business purposes. The ld. PCIT, Rohtak examined the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 of the ld. AO and concluded that since the same was passed without applying the provisions of section 69C of the Act r.w.s

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961. The said claim of long terms Capital gain of Re 63,01,425/- as exempt income has formed 8 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO the very basis for the selection of the case for scrutiny in CASS. The grounds being interrelated are disposed of together. 5.1.1 It was also noted by the AD that

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

bogus Expense have been claimed against CSR receipts which is evidenced by the agreement with Accordis Health care Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that a Survey was conducted on Accordis Health on 25.06.2012 and the ITI did field enquiry on entities from which Accordis made purchases. Page 14 of 61 Advantage India Vs.PC.I.T Statement of the director of Accordis

ADVANTAGE INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT (CENTRAL)-II, NEW DELHI

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

bogus Expense have been claimed against CSR receipts\nwhich is evidenced by the agreement with Accordis Health\ncare Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that a Survey was conducted\non Accordis Health on 25.06.2012 and the ITI did field\nenquiry on entities from which Accordis made purchases.\nStatement of the director of Accordis Sh. Raman Kapoor was\nrecorded who could

MEENA SWARUP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

bogus made the addition of the same by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- (A) “That on the facts & circumstances of the case the learned

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

120 of the Act viz. Notification No.52/2014, SO. 2754(E) dt. 22.10.2014, Notification No.50/2014, S.O. 2752(E) dt.22.10.2014 and Notification No.70/2014, S.O. 2915(E) dt. 13.11.2014 and thus, it has legal binding. Gr. 3. No specified violation as defined in sec 12AB(4) which is sine qua non for withdrawal of registration (Pg 20, 258 29)  Assertion of society that

RAHUL ANIL AHUJA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 31(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is

Bench: Us For Assessment

bogus purchase from these three parties is upheld and the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. Ground no. 5 of the appeal is related to the addition of Rs. 1,38,389/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest. 6.1 The AO noted that the appellant has claimed an interest