ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

purchased on 16.7.2010 for Rs. 10,35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

purchased on 16.7.2010 for Rs. 10,35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

purchased on 16.7.2010 for Rs. 10,35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

purchased on 16.7.2010 for Rs. 10,35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

purchased on 16.7.2010 for Rs. 10,35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged

DCIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. PINNACLE CLOTHING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

254 ITR 449 (Delhi) and of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Arati Jana (Smt) (AY 2006-07) and another of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in N.K. Industries Limited vs. DCIT (2017) 292 CTR 354 made the addition of Rs.3,59,02,700/- on the ground of purchases of the Assessee being bogus. Submission before

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. PINNACLE CLOTHING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

254 ITR 449 (Delhi) and of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Arati Jana (Smt) (AY 2006-07) and another of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in N.K. Industries Limited vs. DCIT (2017) 292 CTR 354 made the addition of Rs.3,59,02,700/- on the ground of purchases of the Assessee being bogus. Submission before

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)

bogus purchases. He vehemently contended that the most of the depositor are also the suppliers to the assessee which have already been doubted. He raised all those contentions which were raised by him to show that that if the suppliers are non-existent similarly the parties who deposited the money with the assessee are also non-existent. He further submitted

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)

bogus purchases. He vehemently contended that the most of the depositor are also the suppliers to the assessee which have already been doubted. He raised all those contentions which were raised by him to show that that if the suppliers are non-existent similarly the parties who deposited the money with the assessee are also non-existent. He further submitted

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)

bogus purchases. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 120049800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans. During the year assessee has accepted interest free loans which were repaid in full or part. On enquiry assessee submitted

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)

bogus purchases. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 120049800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans. During the year assessee has accepted interest free loans which were repaid in full or part. On enquiry assessee submitted

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)

bogus purchases. In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 120049800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loans. During the year assessee has accepted interest free loans which were repaid in full or part. On enquiry assessee submitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

purchased goods from Shree Laxmi\nIndustrial Corporation were borne out. The Income-tax\nAppellate Tribunal also noted-and we agree with that\napproach entirely-that the income-tax authorities had not\neven rejected the books of the assessee even while finding\nthe claim as genuine transaction to be bogus.\n3.\nHaving regard to the conspectus of the\ncircumstances