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

5. During the survey proceedings, statement of the director of the company, Sh. Atul Jain was also recorded. Copy of statement is placed in PB pg 33-47 6. In the statement recorded as on 15.06.2019, Sh. Atul Jain admitted that certain transactions of sale/purchase in Vakson Metaplast Private Limited are not genuine and these are bogus in nature

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

5. During the survey proceedings, statement of the director of the company, Sh. Atul Jain was also recorded. Copy of statement is placed in PB pg 33-47 6. In the statement recorded as on 15.06.2019, Sh. Atul Jain admitted that certain transactions of sale/purchase in Vakson Metaplast Private Limited are not genuine and these are bogus in nature

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.

5. Based on the findings that the purchases are bogus, Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the GP @ 25% of the disputed purchases by relying on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Bharatram vs. ACIT, ITA No.1753/Hyd/2018 dated 28.07.2020. Accordingly, the AO had disallowed 25% of bogus purchases of Rs.1,73,02,120/- amounting to Rs.43

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.

5. Based on the findings that the purchases are bogus, Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate the GP @ 25% of the disputed purchases by relying on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Bharatram vs. ACIT, ITA No.1753/Hyd/2018 dated 28.07.2020. Accordingly, the AO had disallowed 25% of bogus purchases of Rs.1,73,02,120/- amounting to Rs.43

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

5 of 19 the purchases were genuine as the impugned parties had filed GST returns and claimed input tax credit. The ld. Assessing Officer concluded that the purchase made from two parties namely Shri Balaji Wooltex and Shri Rameshwaram International (supra) aggregating to Rs.1,04,92,018/- was bogus. The ld. AO further concluded that the impugned bogus purchases were

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)

5. Findings/Determination: The appellant had filed return of income declaring income of Rs.8,63,640/-. An exemption of Rs. 63,01,425/- under section 10(38) was also claimed. This exempt income has formed the very basis for the selection of the case for scrutiny in CASS. The grounds being interrelated are disposed of together. It was seen that income

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

5 different companies from year 2008 to 2013 and converted into corpus donation during FY 2016-17, however status of these companies as per MCA is "Strike Off Case Law relied upon CIT(Exemptions) Vs Batanagar Education and Research Trust (2021) SC 129 taxmann.com 30. (AY involved 2017-18) (Pg 200-208) • Unaccounted cash found from the premise

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

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

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

5 of 61 Advantage India Vs.PC.I.T 15.1 On the other hand, ld. PCIT, Gurgaon by virtue of the Explanation defining the scope of 'case' for the purpose of section 127, did not have power vested in him to cancel registration u/s 12AB(4). The 'case' refers to assessment initiated as a consequence of search or consequential proceedings to such

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