BRIJWASI JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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

BRIJWASI JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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. BRIJWASI JEWELLERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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. BRIJWASI JEWELLERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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

BRIJWASI JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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

BRIJWASI JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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. BRIJWASI JEWELLERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

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

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

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, 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

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd H84 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

purchases, making out of bogus bills, etc. He accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,72,775 by his assessment order.................. The ITO, by that order, Initiated action for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) Para-5: Sir Sadilal Sagar & General Mills case. (A.Y. 1958-59) The assessee company, which derived

M/S DHADDA INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus unsecured loans and sales were being routed in benami concerns. Assessee in response responded that these are genuine transactions of the purchases which have been then sold to customers on which assessee has paid the tax. Further, it was submitted that all the payments made against these purchases were through account payee cheques which were duly reflected