ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus recovery case against the assessee. However he has failed to provide any documentary evidence/petition copy in this regard. Further, the assessee has also failed to explain the nature of suit filed, reason for the suit filed, how the same is related to cash purchase. The assessee has requested to cross examine the MD and accountant of M/s Pragati Glass

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

bogus purchase transactions from Kriya controlled by Jain & Choudhary Group. These parties have in unequivocal terms I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 11 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 admitted in the course of search that they were not doing any real business and were only providing false accommodation entries. These parties/suppliers have also admitted that no physical goods were handed over by them

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

bogus purchase transactions from Kriya controlled by Jain & Choudhary Group. These parties have in unequivocal terms I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 11 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 admitted in the course of search that they were not doing any real business and were only providing false accommodation entries. These parties/suppliers have also admitted that no physical goods were handed over by them

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

151 was accorded in mechanical and routine manner, without application of mind by the Joint CIT, Range 19, Delhi. 6.4 The learned AO has erred in alleging that the assessee has made bogus purchases of Rs. 1,38,32,272/- and bogus sales of Rs 1,47,20,000/-even without rejecting the books of accounts under section

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)

bogus purchases. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

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

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)

1) (b) which requires that after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, a case can be reopened only if income is represent by the Asset. (iii) That other mandatory and statutory conditions of section 147 to 151 A have not been complied with. (2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

KUMAR BROTHERS CO. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchase entries taken by the appellant from the Jain Brothers. These are taken through the intermediary Suni Kumar jain, CA and which are passed on to them through the shell companies of the Jain Brothers. 4. Facts taken from the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the record are as under: 5. During the course of search operation