M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

bogus bills were obtained by the appellant from M/s.Surva Vinayak Industries Limited (in short ‘SVIL’) in order to inflate purchase of sandalwood oil is unsubstantiated and without any basis. (iii) That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law relying upon statements/Materials collected behind the back of the appellant, without allowing cross-examination and/ or confronting the same

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

8,11,18,773/- made by AO on account of taking accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchases from M/s Rajdhani Sales Corporation. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating gross profit 2 19.93% (GP ratio) on the said bogus purchases, despite of confirming that

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KOHINOOR FOODS LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

8,11,18,773/- made by AO on account of taking accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchases from M/s Rajdhani Sales Corporation. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating gross profit 2 19.93% (GP ratio) on the said bogus purchases, despite of confirming that

GSR INDUSTRIES,NOIDA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 144C (1). 3. Because the impugned assessment order dated 21.06.2023 is perverse as the Ld. AO as well as the 3 GSR Industries Ld. DRP, both didn't appreciate the evidence of the transaction of credit note issued by the assessee and corresponding adjustment made by the AE The allegation that the credit note was afterthought is baseless

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases made from Kirti Enterprises are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 63,42,250/- in the returned income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in arbitrarily disallowing the expenses amounting to INR 29,86,27,579/- debited to profit & loss account

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases made from Kirti Enterprises are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 63,42,250/- in the returned income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in arbitrarily disallowing the expenses amounting to INR 29,86,27,579/- debited to profit & loss account

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

purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. assessing officer/ Id. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in making adjustment of Rs.23,06,351/- on account of commission on standby letter of credit.” 3. Grounds No.1 of the concise ground (supra) is dismissed as not pressed in the wake of averments made

NALWA STEEL POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

144C(5) of the Act, is a vitiated order having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and is otherwise arbitrary and thus bad in law and 2 void ab-initio. 2. That the Hon'ble DRP-2 direction are bad in law to the extent the same are prejudicial to the appellant because: - (a) That

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

144C of the Act. The assessee has earned an LTCG of Rs. 4,07,88,000/- on sale of shares of M/s Gemini Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. On examination of the computation of LTCG it was observed that the assessee has taken deduction of capital gain earned on sale of shares under section 54F of the Act. To claim the benefit

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

8. Meanwhile on 05/01/2011 an FIR No.RC-DAI-2011-A-0001 was filed under section 154 Cr.P.C by CBI for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and abuse of official position against the Assessee and other persons. The FIR was in the name of (1) Sh V. K. Verma (DG, OC, CWG) (2) Sh Binu Nanu (MD of M/s Meroform India

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated 07.04.2023 addressed to the President, Income

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

purchased in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 on the floor of the stock exchange and the sales were made in FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 of the same. Further, as highlighted that the shares of the scrip of the M/s Odyssey Corporation Ltd. was manipulated in the above time frame. So. it can be said quite evidently

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXAION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

purchased in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 on the floor of the stock exchange and the sales were made in FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 of the same. Further, as highlighted that the shares of the scrip of the M/s Odyssey Corporation Ltd. was manipulated in the above time frame. So. it can be said quite evidently

AMAZON WEB SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 3. In exercise of power vested under him under section 263 of the Act the Ld. PCIT perused and examined the records. He referred to the notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued to assessee and assessee’s response thereto. He concluded as under:- “The reply is evasive and assessee continues