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,

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

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,

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

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

SAKET AGARWAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -45(2), DELHI , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shri Saket Agrawal, Vs Ito, 392/1, 2Nd Floor, Ward-45(2), Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi Delhi-110085. Pan-Aavpa3410D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10489/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 26.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 10,02,940/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reason That Assessee Has Deposited Cash In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetization & Due To The Survey Carried Out At The Business Premises Of The Assessee.

purchases, sales and creditors alleged as bogus. 24. With respect to the application of provision of section 115BBE of the Act, we are of the view that provision of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable from 01.04.2018 i.e. from AY 2018-19 and therefore, the same cannot be applied in the year under appeal. This view is supported

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 2. These are four appeals filed by the assessee and three appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A) for the following assessment years: Appeals filed by the assessee: AY 2017-18 – ITA No. 2632/Del/2022 AY 2018-19 – ITA No. 2633/Del/2022

BHOLENATH FOODS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in above terms

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2012-13 Bholenath Foods Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shop No.208, Ward 47(1), Bldg. No.2612/13, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Aabcb3842P

bogus purchases cannot be sustained in law. 13. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition made is liable to be deleted as no opportunity has been given to cross-examine the third party on whose statement reliance has been placed by the AO. 14. That in view of the facts

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

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act and further erred in not deleting the penalty levied by the respondent u/s 270A of the Act.” 2. Thereafter the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act by the AO as arbitrary, unjust and invalid by raising the following additional grounds

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

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act and further erred in not deleting the penalty levied by the respondent u/s 270A of the Act.” 2. Thereafter the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act by the AO as arbitrary, unjust and invalid by raising the following additional grounds

NYK ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-18(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

bogus where the purchases made by assessee-trader were duly supported by bills and payments were made by account payee cheque, seller also confirmed transaction and there was no evidence to show that amount was recycled back to assessee. 7. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) and AO have erred on facts and in law in not accepting the purchases

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

bogus, solely because the said\nparties have not filed their ITRs.\n5.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in\nupholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming the finding\nof that the “Fund Raising Expense”; “Project expenses” and\n"Other Administrative Expenses” are not falling under the\nmeaning of Section

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),DELHI, DELHI vs. EBERSPAECHER SUETRAK BUS CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

The Appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

bogus by the assessing officer.\n5.5.7 Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT-7,\nDelhi vs M/S Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 135/2023) in its judgment dated\n07.03.2023 has held that mere non response to notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax\nAct by a creditor cannot be basis of addition

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases made from Kirti Enterprises are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 63,42,250/- in the returned income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in arbitrarily disallowing the expenses amounting to INR 29,86,27,579/- debited to profit & loss account

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases made from Kirti Enterprises are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 63,42,250/- in the returned income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in arbitrarily disallowing the expenses amounting to INR 29,86,27,579/- debited to profit & loss account