SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

bogus. iv) G. G. Diamond International v Dy. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mum.) (Trib.) It is not case of the Revenue that the assessee is not maintaining books of account. The purchases are recorded in the books of account. Payments are made by cheque to the immediate purchasers. They accepted and confirmed the sale. To hold

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. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal as CIT(A) c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake

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(1

SH. SWAMI SHARAN GARG,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

bogus, the evidence to prove that the assessee gave cash to purchase the said entry is absent. 7. That on page 9 para 7 of the assessment order the assessee has been held guilty of "furnishing inaccurate particulars", however on page 10 first para he has been held guilty of "concealment", Thus the charge against the assessee befitting the levy

SUNIL SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

b) of explanation 5A to Section 271(1), are satisfied since the relevant previous year had ended prior to the date of search on 7th February, 2008 and the due date expired prior to the date of search. However, the third condition, i.e., the appellant has not filed return of income for the said previous year, is not satisfied inasmuch

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase and sale of shares and there was no relevance for travel to Singapore, Bangkok, Rome, London etc. by one of its Directors. The expenditure on foreign travel can by no means be considered as business expenditure. Further, no evidence has been furnished to prove the purpose of foreign travel to justify expenses. AO further observed that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MBIANS INTERNATIONAQL INC., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

bogus, as only entries have been received by the assessee in the shape of purchases, it is difficult to make out, as to how, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition made by the AO to 20%. Consequently appeal filed by the revenue is hereby 5 ITA No. 13-14/Del./2016 allowed by setting aside the findings returned

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MBIANS INTERNATIONAQL INC., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

bogus, as only entries have been received by the assessee in the shape of purchases, it is difficult to make out, as to how, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition made by the AO to 20%. Consequently appeal filed by the revenue is hereby 5 ITA No. 13-14/Del./2016 allowed by setting aside the findings returned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. GOYAL M.G GASES P. LTD.

The appeal is allowed; no costs

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

bogus claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 37,69,273/- on computers, which as per the AO, were never owned, used or leased by the assessee. It is a matter of record that the assessee purchased 15 computers from PCL, and according to agreement, leased it out to Altos for a period of three years, who took the delivery

KUSUM,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, VIKAS BHAWAN, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices, and the NFAC dismissed the assessee

PR. CIT -8 vs. SAMTEL INDIA LTD.

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

B&W picture tubes in financial year 2005-06. During the Financial Year 2007-08, in order to continue in the business, the assessee company decided to set up another project for manufacture of 'metal parts' for which the company purchased some machinery to the tune of `3.34 crores. The Company was unable to mobilize funds for the machinery

SADHANA PHOSPHATES & CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITOW, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue is allowed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaisadhana Phosphates & Ito A Chemical Ltd. Ward-7(2) 304, South Delhi House Vs. New Delhi 12, Zamrudpur Community Centre, Kailash Colony New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aabcs5840G (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus expenses relating to other parties have been invoiced by assessee. 12. It is observed that assessing officer has initiated proceedings under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act for non-compliance of notices under section 143(2) for which penalty also has been levied under section 271(1)(b

AMAR NATH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

purchase as 1980 for the purpose of indexation and after claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act for construction of existing residential accommodation, declared the long-term capital gains at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer by observing that the bills and vouchers furnished by the Assessee in support of the construction made by Assessee are bogus and fictitious and, therefore