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

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

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

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

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

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: 1. “That

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

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: 1. “That

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

GANPATI DIAMOND PALACE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-51(3), NEW DELHI

Accordingly confirmed out of an addition of Rs.41,56,941/- and the balance is deleted. Grounds of appeal No. 1 is therefore partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kuldip Singh

bogus purchases of Rs.31,94,022/- made by the assessee from M/s. Nice Diamonds), without appreciating that the learned A.O.’s action of rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) was untenable. 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not properly adjudicating the ground of appeal relating

GANPATI DIAMOND PALACE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-51(3), NEW DELHI

Accordingly confirmed out of an addition of Rs.41,56,941/- and the balance is deleted. Grounds of appeal No. 1 is therefore partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kuldip Singh

bogus purchases of Rs.31,94,022/- made by the assessee from M/s. Nice Diamonds), without appreciating that the learned A.O.’s action of rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) was untenable. 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not properly adjudicating the ground of appeal relating

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

RAJ KUMAR GARG,BHIWANI vs. ITO WARD-1 BHIWANI, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchases alleged as bogus.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "144B", "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "145(3)", "234A", "234B", "234C

ARVIND JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1)(1), UTTAR PREDESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Arvind Jain Vs Ito Ward 5(1)(1) 487, 2Nd Floor, Haveli Haider Kuli, G Budh Nagar Chandni Chowk Noida New Delhi- 110006 Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acapj9132E

section 149 as same is not covered under the definition of assets. (e) That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the ground taken herein above, the order 5 passed u/s 147 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and hence need to be quashed as evidence produced based on which

SHRI PUNEET JAIN,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

234C is not according to law.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is proprietor of M/s Paras Paper Center and filed his return of income on 30.09.2008 returning income of Rs. 44,65,570/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. During

MAGNOLIA MARTINIQUE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

bogus purchases without identifying any suppression of income, excess stock or creation of assets, contrary to settled judicial precedents. 7. The CIT (A) erred in affirming disallowance of purchases from M/s. Garnet Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Clarissa Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ignoring that payments were made by account payee cheques, entries were reflected in stock registers, and materials were used