ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

bogus and unexplained. It also noticed that when 68 notices were issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, 12 persons confirmed their investments which was to the tune of Rs. 71,16,330/-. CIT (Appeals) also found no plausible explanation from the Revenue to include this amount of Rs. 71,16,330/- as an addition under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, HISAR vs. AJAY KUMAR, HISAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2022-23 is dismissed

bogus purchases and non-deduction of TDS on freight payments. The assessee had provided documentary evidence for purchases, and the sales were accepted by the AO.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the non-response of third parties to notices issued under Section 133(6

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. PINNACLE CLOTHING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase bills, delivery challans, confirmation of ledger accounts of suppliers, sales tax returns and sales tax challans of suppliers and their income tax returns, merely returning of notices under section 133(6) sent to those suppliers could not be sufficient to make additions under section 69C. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus

DCIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. PINNACLE CLOTHING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

purchase bills, delivery challans, confirmation of ledger accounts of suppliers, sales tax returns and sales tax challans of suppliers and their income tax returns, merely returning of notices under section 133(6) sent to those suppliers could not be sufficient to make additions under section 69C. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2), NOIDA, NOIDA vs. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Bhavya Pipe Industry Ward-5(1)(2), Plot No. F-39, Site- C, Noida. Vs. Upsidc, Industrial Area, Surajpur ,Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gr. Noida-201306 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aatfb2209D (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Income Tax Act and in reply to the notice not even one of the parties had filed any reply. Hence the conclusion drawn by the assessing officer is correct that the appellant might have purchased goods from other parties on lower rate and C.O.28/Del/2025 ITO vs. Bhavya Pipe Industries introduced the bills of other parties

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

133 (6) of the Act, moreover, the fact the investor company was subsequently purchased by the various members of Jagat Group is an irrelevant and extraneous consideration as it is a separate transaction altogether and has nothing to do with the fact that share capital received by the appellant company which was duly explained and documentary evidences were tendered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Section 133 (6) of the Act, it cannot be taken that the\nsaid transaction was ingenuine. It has been held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.\nLovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) that if the\nshare application money is received by the assessee\ncompany from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names\nare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

bogus purchase disallowance/addition of `13,52,382/- as well whereas the Revenue’s twin substantive grounds seek to uphold the same in entirety along with Section 69A addition of `40,18,132/- hereinabove (supra). 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. Learned Counsel representing assessee has filed