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

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

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

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

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

263 of the Act. It was argued that once non- genuineness of the transaction and the bogus element of the purchases were established and the assessee had failed to explain the source of expenditure qua purchase, only recourse left to the ld. AO was to have invoked provisions of section

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

bogus purchases were made and after due deliberation and consideration of all the submissions, the assessment order was passed wherein the reply of the assessee was not considered and instead of 10 Cone Craft Paper Pvt. Ltd., Delhi granting relief, disallowance of expenditure spent on purchases was made and as such clause b of explanation 2 to Section 263

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. S S PULSES MANUFACTURING PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the Page 6 of 16 DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses [A.Y 2012-13] entire amount

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee through ITBA under DIN & Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2020- 21/1031641759(1)/2287dated 22.03.2021 requiring him to explain as to why the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act should not be considered as erroneous

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

bogus purchase transactions from Kriya controlled by Jain & Choudhary Group. These parties have in unequivocal terms I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 11 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 admitted in the course of search that they were not doing any real business and were only providing false accommodation entries. These parties/suppliers have also admitted that no physical goods were handed over by them

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

bogus purchase transactions from Kriya controlled by Jain & Choudhary Group. These parties have in unequivocal terms I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 11 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 admitted in the course of search that they were not doing any real business and were only providing false accommodation entries. These parties/suppliers have also admitted that no physical goods were handed over by them

CHINTAMANI COMMODITIES,JHILMIL INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. PCIT, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhchintamani Commodities Vs. Pcit, 20 A-20, Jhilmil Industrial Room No. 106, Vikas Area, Shahdhra Bhawan, I P Estate Delhi - 110095 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aagfc9374B Appellant .. Respondent

bogus purchase of Rs.3,42,48,621/- under Section 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which is still pending. 3. In the meantime, show cause dated 24.02.2024 under Section 263

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Purchase from Non-filers of ITR- That in Point No. 9.3 of Page No. 23 of 27 of Revision order dated 19.03.2025, as follows:- "From the perusal of the preceding finding by the Survey Team, it is quite evident that the issue of bogus parties who have provided increase to the assessee company have come to light and this

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263 of the Act dated 27.03.2025, by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper inquiries and investigation. 2.Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the protective addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

263 of the Act dated 27.03.2025, by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper inquiries and investigation. 2.Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the protective addition

AXIS INFOLINE P LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2613/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Axis Infoline P. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income 196/16B, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Tax, Ramesh Market, East Of Kailash, Income Tax Office, Delhi-1. Nehru Nagar, South Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aadca9862C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

bogus purchases deserved to be disallowed and thereafter, he held the Ld. AO’s order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 1.2 Aggrieved with this the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed under section 263

MADAAN ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT DELHI-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase might be added to its income - Thus, it would mean that assessee had accepted allegations against it - Whether since it was established that expenditure was unexplained/bogus, entire amount of bogus expenditure was to be added to income of assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, PCIT was fully justified in exercising revision jurisdiction under section 263

JOGINDER KUMAR & SONS HUF,PANIPAT vs. PCIT ROTAK, ROTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljoginder Kumar & Sons Huf Pcit, 352/6, Near S D Modern School, Rohtak. Panipat-132103. Vs. Pan- Aachj6257L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhurv Goel, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (‘The Pcit’ In Short) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.03.2025 Wherein The Ld. Pcit Held The Assessment Order As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Terms Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263 & Direct The Ao To Conduct Fresh Enquiries & Passed The Speaking Order.

bogus thus the purchases made from that party is not genuine and nowhere in the assessment order, AO raised any doubts about the source of such purchases. Therefore, he invoked the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act and disallowed the purchases made by the assessee. This being so, the provisions of section

NIVESH GROUP ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT DELHI-15, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase might be added to its income - Thus, it would mean that assessee had accepted allegations against it - Whether since it was established that expenditure was unexplained/bogus, entire amount of bogus expenditure was to be added to income of assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, PCIT was fully justified in exercising revision jurisdiction under section 263

SUNITA GROVAR,PANIPAT, HARYANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ROHTA, ROHTAK HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases including commission expenses. 3 2.1 In pursuant to order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ld. PCIT issued notice on 06.02.2024 and 25.02.2025. Show-cause-notice as to why order under Section 147 dated 13.03.2024 should not be revised by invoking the provisions of Section 263

MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

bogus purchases u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax 1961 as the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in respect of business activities carried out by the parties (seller) during the relevant year ?" 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

bogus purchases of about Rs.65,34,600/-. The ld. Counsel argued that the ld. PCIT passed her order under section 263