NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. NEHA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. RAMAYNA ISPAT PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalramayna Ispat Private Limited, Dcit, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Ramayna Ispat Private Limited, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), New Delhi. Vs. Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca, Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 11.07.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Ltd. Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Processing, Forging, Casting Mixing Of Various Kinds Of Steel, Carbon Settle, Mild Steel, Stainless Steel, High Speed Steel & Bright Steel Etc. The Return Of Income Was Revised On 28.10.2018 At An Income Of Rs.1,00,96,587/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 For The Reason That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entries Of Bogus Purchases & After Considering The Submissions Made, Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs.5,78,99,593/- U/S 69C Of The Act Towards Unexplained Expenditure On Account Of Bogus Purchase & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Ao Further Made An Addition Of Rs.3,14,795/- By Estimating The Net Profit Declared By The Assessee. Besides This Further Disallowance Of Rs.9,37,608/- Was Made Out Of Freight Expenses And, Accordingly, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.6,87,83,788/-.

section 148 of the Act by the Ld. AO even when inter alia the notice u/s 148 was issued: a. By the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer as envisaged in the Act: b. Without implementation of mind by the Ld. AO and only Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO on the basis of information

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. AKASH DEEP SETHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

260 (Bom.); 8 CO No.26/Del/2025 Pro CIT v. Synbiotics Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 316/265 Taxman 34 (Gujarat) (Mag.) (where GP rate of 25% of bogus purchases was applied)]. 5.12.3 In cases where on the basis of statements of alleged suppliers it was found that no supplies were made to the assessee, it was held that purchases were bogus

SAGAR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A No.2456/Del/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Sagar International Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Income Tax Officer, Fb/81, East Mohan Co-Op, . Ward-7(2), New Delhi. Indl, Estate, Extn., Badarpur, Delhi – 110044. [Pan: Aaacs 3043 E] अपीलाथ / Appellant !"यथ /Respondent

bogus entries vide the concerns namely M/s.Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co., M/s.Vishu Tradipng Co., and M/s. Shree Shyam Trading Co., amounting of Rs.50,67,260/-. The AO has scrutinized the audited accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration and found that the assessee had disclosed these transactions but the fact that the assessee company obtained accommodation entries from

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON vs. AKANSHA FASHION, NEW DELHI

bogus and added\nback to the income of the assessee. The assessee contested the aforesaid\nadditions by filing appeals before learned first appellate authority.\n5. Before the first appellate authority, the primary contentions of the\nassessee were to the effect that the proceeding initiated under section 153C of\nthe Act is invalid, as, the Assessing Officer has not recorded proper

FORUM SALES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

260/- 2. Postage and courier Rs.1,53,286/- 3. Clearing and forwarding Rs.4,29,790/- 4. Printing and stationery Rs.1,34,778/- 5. Travelling –Directors Rs.11,44,391/- 6. Vehicle repair and maintenance Rs.11,97,454/- 7. Miscellaneous Rs.6,61,984/- 8. Entertainment Rs.1,52,147/- 9. Packing expenses Rs.1,39,393/- Total Rs.44,58,183/- According to the Assessing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. FORUM SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

260/- 2. Postage and courier Rs.1,53,286/- 3. Clearing and forwarding Rs.4,29,790/- 4. Printing and stationery Rs.1,34,778/- 5. Travelling –Directors Rs.11,44,391/- 6. Vehicle repair and maintenance Rs.11,97,454/- 7. Miscellaneous Rs.6,61,984/- 8. Entertainment Rs.1,52,147/- 9. Packing expenses Rs.1,39,393/- Total Rs.44,58,183/- According to the Assessing

FORUM SALES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

260/- 2. Postage and courier Rs.1,53,286/- 3. Clearing and forwarding Rs.4,29,790/- 4. Printing and stationery Rs.1,34,778/- 5. Travelling –Directors Rs.11,44,391/- 6. Vehicle repair and maintenance Rs.11,97,454/- 7. Miscellaneous Rs.6,61,984/- 8. Entertainment Rs.1,52,147/- 9. Packing expenses Rs.1,39,393/- Total Rs.44,58,183/- According to the Assessing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. FORUM SALES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena Pillai

260/- 2. Postage and courier Rs.1,53,286/- 3. Clearing and forwarding Rs.4,29,790/- 4. Printing and stationery Rs.1,34,778/- 5. Travelling –Directors Rs.11,44,391/- 6. Vehicle repair and maintenance Rs.11,97,454/- 7. Miscellaneous Rs.6,61,984/- 8. Entertainment Rs.1,52,147/- 9. Packing expenses Rs.1,39,393/- Total Rs.44,58,183/- According to the Assessing

INS FINANCE & INVESTMENT P LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 12(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

260,202,839 1,875,562,713 Of fabric and cloths 606,52,510 1865,98,568 4587,97,947 Income From road and infrastructure projects Expenses for purchase of Raw material 1846,99,643 2,633,445,588 1,259,326,252 Expensesfor Road Construction 3317,53,4,887 377,43,243 4497,88,601 Please comment regarding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. M/S GARG CONCAST LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) is on two counts of additions made on allegations of bogus purchasers