AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

14A: ITA No. 2806/Del/2018 (Ground No. 7) 76. This issue relates to disallowance of expenses of Rs.4,11,184/- u/s 14A of I. T. Act. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed by AO that the assessee has claimed the exempt income of Rs.37,41,776/- against which no expenditure has been disallowed. He further observed that the assessee company

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

14A: ITA No. 2806/Del/2018 (Ground No. 7) 76. This issue relates to disallowance of expenses of Rs.4,11,184/- u/s 14A of I. T. Act. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed by AO that the assessee has claimed the exempt income of Rs.37,41,776/- against which no expenditure has been disallowed. He further observed that the assessee company

M/S FIREPRO WIRELESS & TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

purchase, the AO made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, the AO made addition of Rs.1,00,121/- u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that the investment made by the assessee company were of Rs.2 crore and provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A are applicable on such investments. Thus

M/S VARDAAN FASHION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(2A), Rule 14A of the Income Tax Rules and Form No. 6B along with the annexure, we do not find any reason which prompted the auditor to proceed with „investigation‟ of the accounts when the only mandate given to him was to „audit‟ the account. In the annexure submitted before us of the special audit

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VARDAN FASHION, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivardan Fashions, Jcit, E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Range-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vardan Fashions, Circle-33(1) E-1/7, 2Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan:Aacfv0423H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(2A), Rule 14A of the Income Tax Rules and Form No. 6B along with the annexure, we do not find any reason which prompted the auditor to proceed with „investigation‟ of the accounts when the only mandate given to him was to „audit‟ the account. In the annexure submitted before us of the special audit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus in nature in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. In view of this discussion, learned assessing officer noted that he is clear that the gross profit should be higher than 9.53% in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. Accordingly, he computed the mean of the gross profit rate found in the seized material, which comes to 24.38% in this year also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus in nature in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. In view of this discussion, learned assessing officer noted that he is clear that the gross profit should be higher than 9.53% in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. Accordingly, he computed the mean of the gross profit rate found in the seized material, which comes to 24.38% in this year also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus in nature in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. In view of this discussion, learned assessing officer noted that he is clear that the gross profit should be higher than 9.53% in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. Accordingly, he computed the mean of the gross profit rate found in the seized material, which comes to 24.38% in this year also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus in nature in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. In view of this discussion, learned assessing officer noted that he is clear that the gross profit should be higher than 9.53% in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. Accordingly, he computed the mean of the gross profit rate found in the seized material, which comes to 24.38% in this year also

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

bogus in nature in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. In view of this discussion, learned assessing officer noted that he is clear that the gross profit should be higher than 9.53% in assessment year 2005 – 06 also. Accordingly, he computed the mean of the gross profit rate found in the seized material, which comes to 24.38% in this year also

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 14A of Income Tax The Act, 1961 and thus restricting disallowance to extent of exempt income. 11. Whether on facts & in circumstances of case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in directing to take basis of calculation from lowest purchases from third party, thus ignoring facts and evidences of bogus

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(2A), Rule 14A of the Income Tax Rules and Form No. 6B along with the annexure, we do not find any reason which prompted the auditor to proceed with „investigation‟ of the accounts when the only mandate given to him was to „audit‟ the account. In the annexure submitted before us of the special audit

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. INDERPAL SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(2A), Rule 14A of the Income Tax Rules and Form No. 6B along with the annexure, we do not find any reason which prompted the auditor to proceed with „investigation‟ of the accounts when the only mandate given to him was to „audit‟ the account. In the annexure submitted before us of the special audit

MR. INDER PAL SINGH WADHAWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiinder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Jcit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Vs. Circle-33, Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. 15Th Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Acit, E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, East Patel Circle-33, Vs. Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6904L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan, Circle-33(1), Room No.1505, 15Th E/1/7, Ii Nd Floor, Vs. Floor, Dr. Shyama Prasad East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Mukherjee Civil Centre, Pan: Aarps6904L New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 142(2A), Rule 14A of the Income Tax Rules and Form No. 6B along with the annexure, we do not find any reason which prompted the auditor to proceed with „investigation‟ of the accounts when the only mandate given to him was to „audit‟ the account. In the annexure submitted before us of the special audit

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

14A. 14. With regard to Ground Nos.5 to 5.2 regarding disallowance of deduction claimed on account of expenditure on scientific research under section 35(2AB) for Rohtak Unit, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee had, during the year under consideration, claimed deduction in respect of scientific research expenditure incurred at its in-house facility

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

14A. 14. With regard to Ground Nos.5 to 5.2 regarding disallowance of deduction claimed on account of expenditure on scientific research under section 35(2AB) for Rohtak Unit, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessee had, during the year under consideration, claimed deduction in respect of scientific research expenditure incurred at its in-house facility

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.

14A read with Rule 8D to Rs.5,02,400/-. 4. With regard to deletion of addition of Rs.43,25,530/- to the extent of Rs.10,38,127/- and reduction of gross profit margin from 25% to 6% of bogus purchases, the relevant facts are, assessee company is a contract manufacturer of M/s. Coca Cola India for manufacturing/bottling of aerated water

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.

14A read with Rule 8D to Rs.5,02,400/-. 4. With regard to deletion of addition of Rs.43,25,530/- to the extent of Rs.10,38,127/- and reduction of gross profit margin from 25% to 6% of bogus purchases, the relevant facts are, assessee company is a contract manufacturer of M/s. Coca Cola India for manufacturing/bottling of aerated water