BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

130 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai190Delhi130Bangalore90Jaipur49Hyderabad38Allahabad21Ahmedabad20Indore19Agra17Chennai14Ranchi13Nagpur13Pune9Kolkata9Chandigarh7Raipur6Karnataka5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Rajkot4Surat3Guwahati3Dehradun2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Addition to Income95Section 6859Section 143(3)52Section 26352Section 153A51Section 234A46Section 13243Disallowance42Section 14741Natural Justice

GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5567/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5568/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5569/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, Central Circle-11, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 5540/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, New Delhi Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg4538J Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement:21.01.2021 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & One Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxi, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2012. 2. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Were Heard Together. Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. In Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 For The Ay 2008-09, Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 36

sections 234A and 234B of the Act is also illegal and against the provision of law.” Disallowance of preliminary expenses: 6. Ground No. (iii) for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are not pressed by the assessee, hence do not required to adjudicate. Issue of addition on account of bogus purchases

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

38
Bogus Purchases29
Section 153C26

GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5568/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5568/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5569/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, Central Circle-11, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 5540/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, New Delhi Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg4538J Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement:21.01.2021 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & One Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxi, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2012. 2. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Were Heard Together. Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. In Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 For The Ay 2008-09, Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 36

sections 234A and 234B of the Act is also illegal and against the provision of law.” Disallowance of preliminary expenses: 6. Ground No. (iii) for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are not pressed by the assessee, hence do not required to adjudicate. Issue of addition on account of bogus purchases

GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5569/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Ita No. 5568/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 5569/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, Central Circle-11, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 5540/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit, Vs Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-11, Gk House-187A, Flat No. 102, New Delhi Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccg4538J Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement:21.01.2021 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee & One Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xxxi, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2012. 2. Since, The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Common, They Were Heard Together. Golf Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. In Ita No. 5567/Del/2012 For The Ay 2008-09, Following Effective Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 36

sections 234A and 234B of the Act is also illegal and against the provision of law.” Disallowance of preliminary expenses: 6. Ground No. (iii) for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are not pressed by the assessee, hence do not required to adjudicate. Issue of addition on account of bogus purchases

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section 234A

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section 234A

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section 234A

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

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

ITA 1143/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

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)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 40

section 245D(4) of the act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the during the year the assessee has procured goods from same parties from whom the goods have been purchased for AY 2009-10 i.e. assessment years before ITSC, and therefore the same principle may be applied in this case. 39. Against this the Ld. authorized representative submitted that

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

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

ITA 950/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

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)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 40

section 245D(4) of the act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the during the year the assessee has procured goods from same parties from whom the goods have been purchased for AY 2009-10 i.e. assessment years before ITSC, and therefore the same principle may be applied in this case. 39. Against this the Ld. authorized representative submitted that

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

ITA 1155/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

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)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

section 245D(4) of the act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the during the year the assessee has procured goods from same parties from whom the goods have been purchased for AY 2009-10 i.e. assessment years before ITSC, and therefore the same principle may be applied in this case. 39. Against this the Ld. authorized representative submitted that

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

ITA 1589/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

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)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

section 245D(4) of the act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the during the year the assessee has procured goods from same parties from whom the goods have been purchased for AY 2009-10 i.e. assessment years before ITSC, and therefore the same principle may be applied in this case. 39. Against this the Ld. authorized representative submitted that

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

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

ITA 952/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

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)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Verma, CIT DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 68

section 245D(4) of the act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the during the year the assessee has procured goods from same parties from whom the goods have been purchased for AY 2009-10 i.e. assessment years before ITSC, and therefore the same principle may be applied in this case. 39. Against this the Ld. authorized representative submitted that

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7581/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

234A ad 234B is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, the interest as charged is very excessive.” ITA No. 7581 /Del/2018 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts for sustaining/confirming an addition of Rs. 56,421/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the addition

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7580/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

234A ad 234B is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, the interest as charged is very excessive.” ITA No. 7581 /Del/2018 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts for sustaining/confirming an addition of Rs. 56,421/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the addition

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7579/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

234A ad 234B is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, the interest as charged is very excessive.” ITA No. 7581 /Del/2018 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts for sustaining/confirming an addition of Rs. 56,421/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the addition

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

ITA 7582/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 234A

234A ad 234B is illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, the interest as charged is very excessive.” ITA No. 7581 /Del/2018 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts for sustaining/confirming an addition of Rs. 56,421/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the addition

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1200/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills 3.1 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the impugned addition of INR 36,54,70,992/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions without appreciating evidences/records/ information/ submissions furnished

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills 3.1 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the impugned addition of INR 36,54,70,992/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions without appreciating evidences/records/ information/ submissions furnished

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1196/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills 3.1 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the impugned addition of INR 36,54,70,992/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions without appreciating evidences/records/ information/ submissions furnished

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1344/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills 3.1 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the impugned addition of INR 36,54,70,992/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions without appreciating evidences/records/ information/ submissions furnished

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1343/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills 3.1 On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the impugned addition of INR 36,54,70,992/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions without appreciating evidences/records/ information/ submissions furnished