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, 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

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

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, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. REETA GOEL, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2021-22

bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. Section 69C reads. "Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the amount covered

SMT. REETA GOEL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2021-22

bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. Section 69C reads. "Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the amount covered

IMRAN AHMAD,MORADABAD, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MORADABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee thereby disallowing his purchases of Rs. 4,02,55,000/-, reading as under:- “Ground No. 1 and 2 11. I have considered the written submissions, including the case laws relied upon, order of the AO and material available on record. In these grounds the appellant contended that the issue of the notice

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus.” 15. During the hearing before us, the fact of production of the parties by the ld. CIT(A) in the presence of the Assessing Officer has not been in dispute. The fact that the parties supplied milk to the assessee company could not be disputed. The AO has also held that milk purchases were made not from farmers

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus.” 15. During the hearing before us, the fact of production of the parties by the ld. CIT(A) in the presence of the Assessing Officer has not been in dispute. The fact that the parties supplied milk to the assessee company could not be disputed. The AO has also held that milk purchases were made not from farmers

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section holding that the addition has been made on account of unexplained purchases, any adjudication by the Tribunal would be only academic in nature. Addition on account of unexplained purchases: 31. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded the detailed statement of all the purchase parties on oath and came to a conclusion that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section holding that the addition has been made on account of unexplained purchases, any adjudication by the Tribunal would be only academic in nature. Addition on account of unexplained purchases: 31. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded the detailed statement of all the purchase parties on oath and came to a conclusion that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 26, 27 & 28/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section holding that the addition has been made on account of unexplained purchases, any adjudication by the Tribunal would be only academic in nature. Addition on account of unexplained purchases: 31. The ld. CIT(A) has recorded the detailed statement of all the purchase parties on oath and came to a conclusion that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness

RAJAT ALLOYS (P) LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

bogus purchases. Whereas, she submitted, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has dealt with loan taken by assessee. Thus, she 6 ITA No.9087/Del./2019 submitted, the issue discussed by the Assessing Officer which ultimately formed the basis of addition in the assessment order is completely different from the issue of escaped income which forms the basis of reopening

M/S DHANASHREE DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year 2010-11 Dhanashree Developers P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central 303, Western Edge-1, Western Circle-4, Express Highway, New Delhi. Above Metro Mall, Borivali (East) Mumbai 400066 Pan Aaccd6182F (Appellant) (Respondent)

264/-. Reason for filing revised return was due to a mistake in claiming the depreciation which was inadvertently claimed for the year 2009-10. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 25.08.2011. Further notice under section 143(2) along with a detailed questionnaire was issued on 30.11.2012. Shri A.J. Dighe, Chartered Accountant

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Ita No. 6218/Del/2017 (Asstt. Year 1994-95) & Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd., 96Th Mile Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Village-Bawal, Distt.- Rewari, Haryana (Pan: Aaaca5887A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By : Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.08.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

section 264 of the Act for the assessment year 1996-97 to 2001-2002 vide separate orders each dated 11.03.2015 set aside the issues to the file of the AO for making assessment de novo after giving reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to remand