SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

section 148A(a) of the Act has been conducted; order is based on non-application of mind and without disposing off objections of the Appellant. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the order dated 23.07.2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act is patently illegal

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

section 148A(d), of the impugned entities from whom purchases were allegedly made by the assessee were bogus entities and mere

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MAM RAJ CHUNNI LAL EXIM, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Mam Raj Chunni Lal Exim Ward- 46 (1) Shop No. 5183, Ground New Delhi Floor, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar, Delhi -110006 Pan No.Aaxfm0533B (Appellant) (Respondent)

148A(d) of the Act after the due approval. According to AO the assessee had claimed bogus purchases from M/s Parth International and declared bogus sales to M/s Gunn Enterprises. The Ld. assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.1,44,15,042/- on account of bogus purchases and Rs.44,66,376/- on account of unexplained credit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ROHTAK vs. PANKAJ JAIN, ROHTAK

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaincome Tax Officer, Vs. Pankaj Jain, Rohtak. 123/34, Vishwakarma Kathmandi, Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Azupj6345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate Shri Nakul Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora,Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Upholding The Validity Of The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Without The Proper & Mandatory Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 148A(B). 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Law & On Facts By Failing To Consider That The Then Ao Has Given Notice U/S 148A(B) To Assessee On 31.03.2022

bogus purchases made during the FY 2014-15; (iv) That the order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 were issued by the AO with the prior approval of PCIT, Rohtak. He further brought to the notice of ld. CIT (A) provisions of section

HONEYWELL EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Honeywell Exim Private Vs. Acit, Limited, House No. 121, Circle-10(1), A Pkt., B-04, Keshavpuram. Delhi New Delhi-1100 35 1100 07 Pan: Aadch3719B (Appellant) (Respondent)

148A(d) and notice under section 148 by the AO have been issued and passed without obtaining valid statutory prior approval from the specified authority as provided under section 151 of the Act. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action

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)’

bogus purchase thereby disallowed the same under Section 37 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/03/2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/03/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31/03/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal

ITO WARD-58(3), DELHI vs. B.C.ENTERPRISES, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

148A(a) of the Act are not required. However, when we see the information as provided to assessee along with notice u/s148A(a) as "Annexure" and reproduced herein above, we find that such information did not speak about the real transactions. It is simply stated that assessee has made bogus purchases in the form of accommodation entries provided by Ahok

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

148A and section 151 of the Act.\n5.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby denying the benefit of\nexemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the\nAct'). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nconfirming the order

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

148A and section 151 of the Act.\n5.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby denying the benefit of\nexemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the\nAct'). That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in\nconfirming the order

MAMRAJ AGGARWAL,DELHI SADAR BAZAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases and sales to the tune of Rs. 11,16,49,280/- through accommodation entries provided by Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta. This led to a reassessment notice under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was invalid and bad in law because the prior approval

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

purchases. 4.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases/commission despite the fact that Appellant brought on record the evidence and material to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction even part of the transaction does not pertain to the Appellant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIKASH BHWAN DELHI vs. SUMIT CHHABRA, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrasumit Chhabra Vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Hno. 3, Kiran Vihar, Vikas Bhawan Karkardooma,, Anand Delhi Vihar, S.O. Anand Vihar East Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vikash Bhawan Vs. Sumit Chhabra Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, H. No. 3, Kiran Vihar, D Block, Vikash Bhawan, Karkardooma, I.P. Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110092 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 12.03.2022. It was further alleged that the assessee claimed purchases of Rs.18,84,05,346/- out of which purchases of Rs.2,37,43,753/- from Shri Ashok Kumar are bogus

SUMIT CHHABRA,KIRAN VIHAR, EAST DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NAFAC, VIKAS BHAWAN DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrasumit Chhabra Vs. Assessment Unit, Nafac, Hno. 3, Kiran Vihar, Vikas Bhawan Karkardooma,, Anand Delhi Vihar, S.O. Anand Vihar East Delhi – 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vikash Bhawan Vs. Sumit Chhabra Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, H. No. 3, Kiran Vihar, D Block, Vikash Bhawan, Karkardooma, I.P. Estate, Delhi Delhi – 110092 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aecpc8652G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 12.03.2022. It was further alleged that the assessee claimed purchases of Rs.18,84,05,346/- out of which purchases of Rs.2,37,43,753/- from Shri Ashok Kumar are bogus

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. PR, CIT 20, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2018-19 Ashok Kumar Jain, Vs. Pr. Cit-20, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan: Aakpj1872B

section 148A of the Act, the assessee was required to show cause on the following:- “Information received though Insight Portal (High risk Transaction on verification module of Insight Portal) under Risk Management Strategy in the case of ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, PAN : AAKPJ1872B for the A.Y. 2018- 19 that the assessee has claimed bogus input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.22

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)

148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 was passed with approval of specified authority along with notice under Section 148 of the Act. In case of assessee, specific information was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT under clause (i) to explanation (1) to section 148 of the Act. As per the specific information, Assessee has taken

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:

148A(b) of the Act dated 17/3/2022 show that a search action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on Deepak Sharma group of Mandi Gobindgarh. During the course of search statement of Deepak Sharma was recorded. In his statement he allegedly admitted to have engaged in providing bogus purchase entries through 2 bogus concerns i.e. M/s. Mahinderpal & Sons

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

section 148] with the assessing officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax in the case of assessee for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment.” 3. At the outset the ld. Counsel has pointed out about the delay of 100 days in filing of the appeal for which we find an application for condonation has been filed asserting that

DCIT, VIKASH BHAWAN vs. RAJAN KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukladcit, Vs. Rajan Kumar Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor, 31, Vijay Block, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Delhi (Pan: Caapk8381E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148A(b) of the Act.” Further, notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 27.05.2022 along with information was issued alleging that the purchases of the assessee are bogus

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

148A(d) of the Act has to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order also are quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the above, Ms. Agarwal states they shall immediately take steps to withdraw the appeal filed. Statement accepted. 15. Petition disposed. No order