ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. PINNACLE CLOTHING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Purchases treated as bogus. 3,59,02,700/- 4. Disallowance on account of late deposit of employees 13,22,972/- contribution to Provident Fund and ESI u/s 36(1)(va). Total 3,78,97,067/- & CO No.71/Del/2022 CO No.105/Del/2022 Travelling Expenses of Rs.6,31,441/- & Rs.4,38,450/-: 7. The AO disallowed 10% of the travelling expenses out of Rs.63

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

36(1)(va) iii) Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) 5,12,200/- iv) Bogus creditors 12,97,079/- v) Surrender on account of unverifiable creditors 100,00,000/- 4. On the aforesaid additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have also been initiated by the Assessing Office and vide penalty order dated 29.06.2012 u/s 271(1

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

purchases can be bogus; (h) That the Ld. AO have not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of accounts; I.T.As. No. 5214, 5915/Del/18 4 (i) That the assessee was not provided opportunity to cross examine Sh. R.P. Bhatia, whose statements have been used for making additions in the hands of assessee; (j) That the principle of natural justice

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

purchases can be bogus; (h) That the Ld. AO have not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of accounts; I.T.As. No. 5214, 5915/Del/18 4 (i) That the assessee was not provided opportunity to cross examine Sh. R.P. Bhatia, whose statements have been used for making additions in the hands of assessee; (j) That the principle of natural justice

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARISE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Years : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Acit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Dated 23.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Dated 27.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

purchases from M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer that M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd is found to be a bogus entity on enquiries made by the Department. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,08,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ARISE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Years : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Acit, Vs M/S. Arise India Ltd., Circle-3(1), Room No.380B, B-38, Jain Chowk, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Mangla Puri, Palam, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aadca3432E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Dated 23.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Dated 27.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

purchases from M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd without appreciating the facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer that M/s Chetna Energy Pvt Ltd is found to be a bogus entity on enquiries made by the Department. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,08,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained

DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UFO MOVIEZ INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5.3.4 In view of above, the issue is found to be squarely covered in the favour of the appellant and therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed with the direction

UFO MOVIEZ INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT-27(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Circle-27(1), 1-B, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E Ufo Moviez India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 1-B, Sagar Apartments, Circle-27(1), 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 Pan : Aabcv8900E (Appellants) (Respondents) Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 Order

section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5.3.4 In view of above, the issue is found to be squarely covered in the favour of the appellant and therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed with the direction

LALITA BAJAJ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

36(1)(va) of the Act to submit that when the assessee has not successfully demonstrated investment and the genuineness of transaction of purchase of Shares from assessee then the AO is entitled to invoke the provision of Section 68 of the Act for ITA No.2596 & 2598/Del/2022 Smt. Namita Bajaj and Smt. Lalita Bajaj 7 making addition to the income

NAMITA BAJAJ,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed on merits in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita Nos.2596/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Lalita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.3, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja New Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acspb 0775 F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos.2598/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Namita Bajaj Vs. Dcit Plot No.2, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle – 32 Main Road, Near Raja Delhi Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Acppj 8817 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Aman Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

36(1)(va) of the Act to submit that when the assessee has not successfully demonstrated investment and the genuineness of transaction of purchase of Shares from assessee then the AO is entitled to invoke the provision of Section 68 of the Act for ITA No.2596 & 2598/Del/2022 Smt. Namita Bajaj and Smt. Lalita Bajaj 7 making addition to the income

PARKASH SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 18, NEW DELHI

purchasing the bogus\naccommodation entries and that the income so earned has been rolled over. The PCIT stated that\nbenefit of roll over would be admissible only if the applicant is able to show organic linkage\nbetween the source and the application of income by matching the dates and availability.\n2.4.1 From the expel sheet found during search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. M. B. POWER (MADHAYA PRADESH) LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given

MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. M B POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given

MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED ,SOUTH EAST DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, DELHI vs. M.B. POWER (MADHAYA PRADESH) LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

bogus cost recorded in the books of accounts through bogus billings. 33. The facts and circumstances existed in the year under appeal and the observations and allegations made by the AO while making the disallowance are the same, as were made in the assessment order passed for AY 2016-17. Further, Ld. CIT(A) has also followed the findings given