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

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

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)

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 10th December 2024 passed by the CIT(A) as well as order dated 08 December 2019 passed by the AO under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) manually without mentioning the Document Identification Number (DIN) is non-est. 2.1. On the facts and circumstances

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

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

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

2) of the Act stood issued to the assessee for the year of search and\nnotice under section 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee for earlier\nyears pursuant to the search. During the course of search at the business\npremises of the assessee company as well as the residential premises of the\nDirectors / Employees, various incriminating documents

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA

The appeals are partly allowed in the

bogus and that the amount of Rs.76,00,000/- and Rs.40,12,000/- for the purchase and sale of shares is hereby deleted. Similarly the addition of 24,360/- made by the AO on surmises, treating the payment of brokerage and service tax on purchase and sale of shares as unaccounted cash without bringing any evidence on record is also

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUDHIR DHINGRA

The appeals are partly allowed in the

bogus and that the amount of Rs.76,00,000/- and Rs.40,12,000/- for the purchase and sale of shares is hereby deleted. Similarly the addition of 24,360/- made by the AO on surmises, treating the payment of brokerage and service tax on purchase and sale of shares as unaccounted cash without bringing any evidence on record is also

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR: 159 taxmann.com 558 (Del.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Guj.)  Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.)  DCIT vs. International Tractors

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR: 159 taxmann.com 558 (Del.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Guj.)  Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.)  DCIT vs. International Tractors

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

2. Whether disallowance on account of non-deduction, short deduction or non-payment of TDS has been correctly shown in the return of income. 4.1. The AO on perusal of the ITR of the assessee for AY 16-17 noted that the assessee had reported sundry creditors of Rs.35,03,72,435/- as on 31st March 2016, and despite multiple

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

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

251 (2) of the Act and thus in excess of jurisdiction. 5. That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore the same are contrary to principles of natural justice and hence vitiated. Prayed it is therefore, prayed that addition sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

251 (2) of the Act and thus in excess of jurisdiction. 5. That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore the same are contrary to principles of natural justice and hence vitiated. Prayed it is therefore, prayed that addition sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by\nthe HC\n• CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by\nthe HC\n• Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR: 159 taxmann.com 558\n(Del.)\n• CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Guj.)\n• Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.)\n• DCIT vs. International

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(1) of the Act which reads as under: “Section 251