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

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus purchases made by the assessee, same as has been raised by your honour in your jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act is issued as on 04.12.2024. The provisions of Explanation-1 to sub-section (i) to section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred

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

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus purchases made by the assessee, same as has been raised by your honour in your jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as the show cause notice under section 263 of the Act is issued as on 04.12.2024. The provisions of Explanation-1 to sub-section (i) to section 263, clause (c) reads as follows:- "where any order referred

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

bogus purchases were liable for disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act as they were not incurred for business purposes. The ld. PCIT, Rohtak examined the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 of the ld. AO and concluded that since the same was passed without applying the provisions of section 69C of the Act r.w.s

GUDWALA & SONS,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

bogus purchases is wholly misconceived in law. To prop up its case, the assessee contends that the Assessing Officer has ignored the overwhelming factual evidences. The confirmations of both the parties are placed on record. The purchases made from these parties have entered in I.T.A. No.1919/Del/2018 16 the stock register and the corresponding sales have not been disputed

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

purchases. 4.4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases/commission despite the fact that Appellant brought on record the evidence and material to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction even part of the transaction does not pertain to the Appellant

MUKUL HASTEER,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KARNAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

bogus long term capital gain to the assessee, where the modus operandi is that shares through off market transaction are provided to beneficiary in the same financial year and transferred to assessee's demat account in same financial and later on these are sold in stock exchange. Equity shares are shown to have purchased in earlier financial year whereas they

EDYNAMICS SOLUTIONS LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 8 (1), CR BUILDING ITO

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Edynamics Solutions Limited, Vs. Assessing Officer, 103 First Floor, Plot No.2, Ward 8(1), Tiriveni Complex, Veer Savarkar Delhi Block, Shakarpur, City, Pin: 1100 02 New Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aaace7849N (Appellant) (Respondent)

251 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in enhancing the assessment on adhoc basis by solely placing the reliance on the judgment of a non-jurisdictional High Court and without bringing on record any material evidence. 4. On the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

bogus purchases booked during the relevant financial year and disallowed u/s 37 of the Act by holding that they were not incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business. Further, the AO noted his satisfaction that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue\nare partly allowed

251\n6.\n2020-21\n38,29,06,986\n7.\n2021-22\n25,94,20,079\n8.\n2022-23\n20.30,47,854\n9.\n2023-24\n29,09,10,994\nTOTAL\n1,52,01,87,166\n8.\nThe Learned AO from the seized documents found during the course\nof search, noted that assessee had made purchases

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. IMRAN, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

bogus purchase u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee and the case was assessed u/s 144 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) referred to section 251

TRUNA GOGNA GUGNANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 153C making addition of bogus purchases and commission paid. 4. Against the above order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Assessee raised various grounds including the ground that addition u/s 153C cannot be made de hors incriminating material. Ld. CIT (A) did not adjudicate upon the merits of the case but dismissed the appeal

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68 of the Act has no application to the case of the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by making an addition of Rs. 9,09,171/- representing presumptive commission alleged to be paid by appellant @ 3% to operator for providing long term capital gain and taxed

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

section 68 of the Act has no application to the case of the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by making an addition of Rs. 9,09,171/- representing presumptive commission alleged to be paid by appellant @ 3% to operator for providing long term capital gain and taxed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. DMG FINANCE INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Dmg Finance Investment Private Central Circle-15, Limited, New Delhi. Flat No.1, First Floor, Dakshineshwar, 10 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd3459K

bogus, spurious and non- genuine. Therefore, share application money aggregating to Rs. 3,82,00,000/- during the AY 2011-12 and of Rs. 46,60,400/- received during AY 2012-13 by the above named assessee company is treated as cash credit under Section 68 of the Act of the assessee company. [Addition

MYTH MEDIA SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH vs. AO, ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NOIDA, U.P.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases under Section 37(1) of the Act, despite the Appellant having furnished cogent evidence proving the genuineness of the transactions. 2. Failure to Appreciate Documentary Evidence: The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had submitted comprehensive evidence during the assessment and appellate proceedings, including:  Copies of supplier accounts,  Details of payments made through banking channels

JCIT SPL. RANGE-12, NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANTA INDUSTRIES, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

251 ITR 608 (Guj), In this case, the assessing officer had found that the assessee was engaged in bogus sales two parties on the basis of enquiry and evidence on record and accordingly additions u/s 68 was made by the AO. The purchaser to establish the genuineness of the sales made by him. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court after

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ARISE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Years : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Acit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Dated 23.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Dated 27.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

251/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases from M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer that M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd is found to be a bogus entity on enquiries made by the Department. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARISE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Years : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Acit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Dated 23.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Dated 27.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

251/- made by the AO on account of bogus purchases from M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer that M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd is found to be a bogus entity on enquiries made by the Department. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. DHEER CHAND SHARMA, GHAZIABADI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Sh. Vinay Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.60/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.712/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Vinay Sharma, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdqps4406L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma, Dcit, Central Circle-18, B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. Nos.64 & 65/Del/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita Nos.716 & 717/Del/2019] Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Dheer Chand Sharma B-373, Swarnajyanti Puram, Central Circle-18, Ghaziabad New Delhi Pan: Bdlps0502C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 251(1)(a) of the Act which is not sustainable in law going by CIT Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC); CIT Vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556 (Del.). He therefore vehemently presses the assessee’s cross objections that in case