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

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

153C were not available to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer however independently met the prerequisites for I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 10 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147. Therefore, at the time of issuance of notice under Section 147, there was no statutory embargo for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 6.3 The ld. counsel

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

153C were not available to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer however independently met the prerequisites for I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 10 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147. Therefore, at the time of issuance of notice under Section 147, there was no statutory embargo for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. 6.3 The ld. counsel

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS AGRO FOODS PVT LTD, 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

purchases namely Singhal Food Products and Rohit Trading Co. 24. The Next ground common ground in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1329 & 1330/Delhi/2022 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Parmanand and Sons Food Products Private ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 35 Limited are with regard to deposit during demonetization

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS AGRO FOODS PVT LTD, 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

purchases namely Singhal Food Products and Rohit Trading Co. 24. The Next ground common ground in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1329 & 1330/Delhi/2022 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Parmanand and Sons Food Products Private ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 35 Limited are with regard to deposit during demonetization

DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI vs. PARAMANAND AND SONS FOODS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 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

purchases namely Singhal Food Products and Rohit Trading Co. 24. The Next ground common ground in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1329 & 1330/Delhi/2022 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Parmanand and Sons Food Products Private ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 35 Limited are with regard to deposit during demonetization

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

purchases namely Singhal Food Products and Rohit Trading Co. 24. The Next ground common ground in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1329 & 1330/Delhi/2022 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Parmanand and Sons Food Products Private ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 35 Limited are with regard to deposit during demonetization

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

purchases namely Singhal Food Products and Rohit Trading Co. 24. The Next ground common ground in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1329 & 1330/Delhi/2022 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Parmanand and Sons Food Products Private ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 35 Limited are with regard to deposit during demonetization

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. PARAMANAND AND SONS FOODS PRODUCTS 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

purchases namely Singhal Food Products and Rohit Trading Co. 24. The Next ground common ground in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1329 & 1330/Delhi/2022 for the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 in the case of M/s. Parmanand and Sons Food Products Private ITA No.71/Del/2022 & Ors. Kwality Techmech Pvt. Ltd. & other connected matters 35 Limited are with regard to deposit during demonetization