M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

270A and section 271AAD of the Act.\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the\nlevy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the\nAct.\n12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case,\nas may enable the Appellant to seek justice

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

270A and section 271AAD of the Act.\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the\nlevy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the\nAct.\n12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case,\nas may enable the Appellant to seek justice

DEEPAK GOLCHA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-43(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed in very terms

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2022-23

purchases amounting to Rs. 12,28,95,996/- from alleged bogus parties. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 270A read

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

270A and section 271AAD of the Act.\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the\nlevy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the\nAct.\n12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case,\nas may enable the Appellant to seek justice

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL ,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition - Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

bogus particularly when the books of accounts was not rejected\nPage 17\nITA No.4039/Del/2024\nSunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18)\nand further that VAT return clearly corroborates the impugned sales\nmade out by the assessee the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)in deleting\nsuch addition made in the hands of the assessee is found

JCIT(OSD), DELHI vs. ICRA LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CIRCLE, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bharat Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Devsar Mod, Opp. Delhi Police Circle Bhiwani. School, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021. Pan-Aamfb0628H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv., Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri Parth Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business manufacturing and trading of Guar, Guar dall, Guar Churi, Rui, Sarson, Sarson Oil, Khal Binola and Joe etc. The assessee had filed its return of income, declaring total income of INR 98,041/- on 30.10.2017. The case

ROOPA RANA INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases could not be held bogus\npurchase.\n(iii) CIT vs Smt. Anju Jindal [2016] 387 ITR 418 (Punjab &\nHaryana)\n(iv) Ramesh Kumar &Co, Ville Parle, vs. The ACIT.\n8.\nIn the present case in hand the assessee has submitted the\nexpenses bills before the Ld. CIT(A) and AO. The expense bills\n8\npayments were made through

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). Various opportunities of being heard to ensure compliance to the show-cause notices were provided by the Ld. AO. However, only part-compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AO observing as under completed the assessment: “As per Investigation report available on record, the assesses is beneficiary of bogus

VIKAS CHAWLA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Vikas Chawla, Vs Income Tax Officer, 582/2, 1St Floor, Gali Ward-47(1), D.S. Building, Ghanteshwar Katra Neel New Delhi-110001 Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afnpc7260A

bogus party. The said addition is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of Sections 41(1) and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, neither of which are attracted to the present facts. Grounds Relating to Depreciation, Interest and Expenses 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.12

SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 5 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in completing the assessment at income Rs. 65,43,244/- instead of income of Rs.5,90,940/- as returned by appellant. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer