SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION,GAUTAM BUDH NAGER vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTONS ,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTIONS,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. SHIV SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, all the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also acknowledged the stand of the AO that the creditors shown by the assessee are bogus, based on which the books of the assessee have been held unreliable and rejected. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition made on account of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUPERIOR CRAFTS

The appeals are dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arises for

purchasing stock had transported the raw material. Some other expenses were also incurred. However, while charging the cost price from the sister concerns, no element of charges/expenses on account of transportation etc. were charged. The tribunal examined the said aspect and has held as under:- “14.5 …..The assessee has challenged the decision of CIT(A) and it has been argued

M/S. TRINITY GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 5,60,500/- paid to others without assigning any reason for allowing only 30% of total expenditure claimed by the assessee.” 2 Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd. Share Application Money: Excerpts taken from the Assessing Officer: 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had issued

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First we take up the appeal of revenue in ITA No.3519/Del/2025 for AY 2019-20 4. Revenue is in appeal and raise following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on facts and circumstances

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI IRFAN S/O SH. MEHARBAN, BULANDSHAHAR

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First we take up the appeal of revenue in ITA No.3519/Del/2025 for AY 2019-20 4. Revenue is in appeal and raise following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on facts and circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2,40,000/- is hereby disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the returned income of the assessee for the AY-2020-21.” [Emphasis was supplied by us.] 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A); who rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act and applied

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 purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this respect. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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 purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this respect. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBAL AGRO CORP, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Global Agro Corp, Room No.1704, Plot No.07,1St Floor, E-2 Block, Central Market West Civic Centre, Avenue Road, New Delhi-110002. West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. Pan-Aakfg2650A Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Ca Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of 21.11.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10990/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In Export Of Rice & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 66,28,650/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee From Time To Time, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Wherein Following Additions Were Made:

section 145(3) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,90,84,935/- under the head commission expenses u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained expenditure. 4. That