JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Section 68 of the Act where money was not sourced from the assessee. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on paragraph 3(ix) of the deviation report. (viii) The deviation report categorically rejected the assessee’s books of accounts while considering the issue regarding bogus purchases. In this context, the deviation report also emphasized the fact that stock

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 accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

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 accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

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 accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

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 accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

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 accommodation entry for purchase of material from the accommodation entry providers when the statements are also available on record, these are the incriminating materials. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A erred in holding that there are no incriminating documents for these assessment years. He further submitted that even assessee admits that there are incriminating material and their

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

purchase figures or the fact of cash sales having been made. It was accordingly held that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified. XXX 12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the evidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

purchase figures or the fact of cash sales having been made. It was accordingly held that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified. XXX 12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the evidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section

RAJESH KAPOOR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus. This is a glaring statement that gives sufficient reasons to disbelieve the book results declared by the assessee. During the appellate proceedings, appellant submitted ledger account and bills to substantiate his claim for genuine purchase. However, assessee could not produce the party along with documentary evidence and books of account as asked for verification. 5.9 From the above discussion

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases alleged to have been made by the appellant assessee from Sanjay Jain and there is a complete absence of the M/S LS CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. expression “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” in the satisfaction note. Therefore, the very satisfaction which is totally based on the inference and not material, as alleged to have

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases alleged to have been made by the appellant assessee from Sanjay Jain and there is a complete absence of the M/S LS CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. expression “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” in the satisfaction note. Therefore, the very satisfaction which is totally based on the inference and not material, as alleged to have

GUDWALA & SONS,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

bogus purchases so made is wholly unsustainable in the facts of the case and thus requires to be reversed. 6.2 Adverting to the additions of Rs.3 crore on account of alleged unexplained cash found in the course of search, the ld. counsel pointed out that the additions have been made solely on the basis of the statement of the partner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. ACIT v. ACIT v. ACIT v. 11 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 , dated , dated , dated 20.08.2025 20.08.2025) reiterated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. ACIT v. ACIT v. ACIT v. 11 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 , dated , dated , dated 20.08.2025 20.08.2025) reiterated that

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. ACIT v. ACIT v. ACIT v. 11 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024 , dated , dated , dated 20.08.2025 20.08.2025) reiterated that

HAZARI LAL KESARI CHAND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

bogus purchase entries provided by Sh. Rajender Jain Group to the assessee during the year under consideration through shell companies, M/s Vitrag Jewels, Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Avi Export. The case of the assessee was reopened after recordings the reasons and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The Ld. A.O found that the assessee was beneficiary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

purchase figures or the fact of cash sales having been made. It was accordingly held that the addition of Rs.86 lakhs was not justified. XXX 12. It was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the ITAT failed to appreciate that the evidentiary value of the statement on oath recorded by the Assessee under Section