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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. PARMANAND AND SONS FOODS PRODUCTS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. DEVESH MITTAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

DCIT,CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

GLOBUS AGROFOODS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

DCIT,CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. DEVESH MITTAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

PARMANAND & SONS FOOD PRODUCT PVT. LTD, ,DELHI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-20

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss

DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. DEVESH MITTAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows:

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 711, 712 & 713/Del/2022 A.Y. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit/Acit, B-20, Lawrence Road Cc-20, Industrial Area , Delhi Keshav Puram, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035 Pan : Aaeck1176E Appellant Respondent

1 and 2, therefore, the aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the revenue. 6. In view of aforesaid preceding analysis, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” Accordingly, we delete the addition and allow the ground taken by the assessee in these appeals and dismiss