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

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:

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

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:

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

bogus. 3 I.T.As. No.3993 & 3994/DEL/2019 3.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the aforesaid addition alleging that – (i) the appellant failed to produce supporting evidences in the manner required by the assessing officer to justify tanki purchases; (ii) the appellant did not give the source of funds and cash withdrawals; (iii) payment in cash

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

bogus. 3 I.T.As. No.3993 & 3994/DEL/2019 3.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the aforesaid addition alleging that – (i) the appellant failed to produce supporting evidences in the manner required by the assessing officer to justify tanki purchases; (ii) the appellant did not give the source of funds and cash withdrawals; (iii) payment in cash

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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,

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

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

AMIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals stand allowed for

Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds

MR. SURENDER GUPTA,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals stand allowed for

Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds

VIBHA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals stand allowed for

Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds

MR. SURENDER GUPTA,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals stand allowed for

Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds

AMIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals stand allowed for

Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds

UMA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals stand allowed for

Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds