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)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 12.03.2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23 and the assessee has also filed the Cross Objections. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assesse is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of PVC Pipe under the name and style of M/s Bhavya Pipe Industries

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

bogus purchases will fall within the scope of Section 69C of the Act. Ld. PCIT, therefore, concluded that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. RITU BALA, FARIDABDA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ritu Bala, Vs. Faridabad 4237 Indra Prashtha Colony, Haryana Faridabad – 121 001 Haryana Pan :Bdhpb1495B (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus sale amounting to 2.2,64,84,517/- was available. In order to verify the genuineness of the transactions of the case was reopened u/s 147. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B dated 23/03/2023 making the following additions/disallowances to the total income of the appellant. i) Disallowance of Purchases

PBG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17. 3. Against order dated 25.03.2022 of Ld. AO, the appellant assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2024. 4. Being aggrieved appellant assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds: "1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section

ACIT, CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI vs. MY PAPER MERCHANTS PVT. LTD , DELHI

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

sections": [ "147", "144B", "139(1)", "69C", "115BBE", "271AAC(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the purchases made from M/s S.K. Agencies were genuine, and if the assessee provided sufficient evidence to disprove the AO's allegations of bogus

AXIS INFOLINE P LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2613/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Axis Infoline P. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income 196/16B, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Tax, Ramesh Market, East Of Kailash, Income Tax Office, Delhi-1. Nehru Nagar, South Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aadca9862C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases deserved to be disallowed and thereafter, he held the Ld. AO’s order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 1.2 Aggrieved with this the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed under section

CHINTAMANI COMMODITIES,JHILMIL INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. PCIT, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhchintamani Commodities Vs. Pcit, 20 A-20, Jhilmil Industrial Room No. 106, Vikas Area, Shahdhra Bhawan, I P Estate Delhi - 110095 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aagfc9374B Appellant .. Respondent

bogus purchases whereas the addition was made by the Assessing Officer was under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the observation made by the Ld. PCIT in the show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act is also factually 5 Chintamani Commodities incorrect. Further that the fact of pending of the appeal before the CIT(A) against the said

JOGINDER KUMAR & SONS HUF,PANIPAT vs. PCIT ROTAK, ROTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljoginder Kumar & Sons Huf Pcit, 352/6, Near S D Modern School, Rohtak. Panipat-132103. Vs. Pan- Aachj6257L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhurv Goel, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (‘The Pcit’ In Short) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.03.2025 Wherein The Ld. Pcit Held The Assessment Order As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Terms Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263 & Direct The Ao To Conduct Fresh Enquiries & Passed The Speaking Order.

section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and, therefore, the order of Ld. PCIT deserves to be upheld. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, case of the assessee reopened u/s 147 of the Act for the reason that Joginder Kumar & Sons HUG vs. PCIT purchases made from M/s Radha Kanhaya

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-50(1), NEW DELHI vs. THE SILK FACTORY, DELHI

purchases must also be accepted, and Section 69C of the Act cannot be invoked based on mere suspicion.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["143(3)", "144B", "133(6)", "69C"], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO for bogus

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

bogus purchases should have been made u/s 69C of the Act and taxing the same @ 60% as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, as against normal rate of tax. 3.1 In any view of the matter and in any case, order passed under section 263 is bad in law, barred by limitation and against the facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-, JIND vs. KULBHUSHAN KANSAL, NARWANA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Kulbhushan Kansal, Ward -1, H. No.106, Model Town, Jind (Haryana) Vs. Narwana Pin: 126 102 Pin: 126 116 Pan: Adspk5710E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 144B of the Act for assessment year 2014-15 1 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.3,11,080/-. As per information received from ITO, Investigation, Raipur and from insight portal, it was noticed that assessee made bogus purchases

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

144B r.w. Section 144C(13) passed in pursuance of directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 02.06.2022 read with rectification order dated 28.06.2022 passed by DRP under Rule 13 of the Dispute Resolution Panel Rules, 2009. 2. The concise Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced hereunder for adjudication purposes: I.T.A. No.2109/Del/2022 2 “1. On the facts

MANOJ KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

144B of the Act assessed the income of the assessee at INR 16,60,320/- by making addition of alleged bogus purchases. 3. Thereafter, ld. PCIT has initiated the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act vide issue of show cause notice on 18.03.2025 and when no reply was filed by the assessee, the ld. PCIT pass the impugned order

RAJ KUMAR GARG,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD-1 BHIWANI, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchases alleged as bogus.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "144B", "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "145(3)", "234A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LIGHT HOUSE, HAPUR

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mahalakshmi Light House, Income Tax 285, Avas Vikas Vihar, Room No. 201, First Floor, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi, Pan: Aatfm3627N Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases of Rs.41,82,341/- from M/s Vrindavan International Trade Pvt. Ltd. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs.2,97,78,663/- made to the business income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year on account of under

M/S JHS SVENDGAARD LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Jhs Svendgaard Vs. Dcit Laboratories Ltd. B1/E-23, Central Circle-31, New Mohan Cooperative Delhi Tuhglakabad, Badarpur, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcj5766G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv Revenue By Ms.Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’

144B by Ld.AO, which is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act, despite the absence of any fresh tangible material or valid "information" as required under section 148 and Explanation 1 thereto

BHAWANI CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1362/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2018-19) Bhawani Castings P. Ltd., Kn/F-1, Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Industrial Area, Delhi 110005 Pan: Aaacb-4622-Q बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 4(2), C.R Building, New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ankur Agarwal, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 21.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

144B of the Act made addition of Rs.1,35,40,359/- on account of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s. G.S Industries. The AO has made addition, based on the statement of one Shri Deepak Sharma alleged to have been recorded by the Investigation Wing. The said statement is at page 35 of the 3 paper book

SHALINI CHHABRA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Naveen Chandrashalini Chhabra Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3) 5E-9, Banglow Plot Faridabad Railway, 1167-I, Sector- 21-D, Faridabad Nit, Haryana 121001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afgpc7939D Appellant .. Respondent

144B of the Act has been passed ignoring the first proviso to section 148 which provides that notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless there is "information" [as P a g e | 3 ShaliniChhabra(AY: 2018-19) defined under Explanation 1 to section 148] with the assessing officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax in the case