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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VINAY GROVER,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(1), NEW DELHI

Adopted the sales amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

section 133(6) 9. That Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in estimating the gross profit @ 12.50% 9.1 without considering the past trend the business of the appellant and industry comparable 9.2 which is not only exorbitant but also unreasonable to earn and 9.3 purely on the basis

JCIT(OSD), DELHI vs. ICRA LIMITED, DELHI

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

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

NAZ SHAZIA,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

section 234B and 234C of the IT Act. 5. Your appellant craves the leave to add, amend, alter and / or delete any of the Grounds of Appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal.” 3. The assessee had challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case. The interconnected issue

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL ,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), , FARIDABAD

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

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

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

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition - Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, FARIDABAD

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

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

GOLD SPICE IMPEX,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. The assessee has raised solitary issue of addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and taxing the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. The relevant facts of the issues raised by the assessee are, assessee filed its return of income