MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

bogus purchases. 72. Thus, considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the abundant evidences furnished by the assessee in order to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, there was nothing whatsoever for the ld. CIT(A) to sustain gross profit addition on alleged purchases over and above the gross profit declared by the assessee. In view

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

bogus purchases. 72. Thus, considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the abundant evidences furnished by the assessee in order to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, there was nothing whatsoever for the ld. CIT(A) to sustain gross profit addition on alleged purchases over and above the gross profit declared by the assessee. In view

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

bogus purchases. 72. Thus, considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the abundant evidences furnished by the assessee in order to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, there was nothing whatsoever for the ld. CIT(A) to sustain gross profit addition on alleged purchases over and above the gross profit declared by the assessee. In view

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

bogus purchases. 72. Thus, considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the abundant evidences furnished by the assessee in order to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, there was nothing whatsoever for the ld. CIT(A) to sustain gross profit addition on alleged purchases over and above the gross profit declared by the assessee. In view

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

bogus purchases. 72. Thus, considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and the abundant evidences furnished by the assessee in order to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, there was nothing whatsoever for the ld. CIT(A) to sustain gross profit addition on alleged purchases over and above the gross profit declared by the assessee. In view

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus entity. Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Ajay Surendra Patel V/s Dy. CIT, (2017) 394 ITR 321 (Guj), while examining the issue of piercing of veil for imposing tax liability has extensively examined the issue as to under what circumstances piercing the corporate veil in tax matter is permissible and it will be beneficial to reproduce

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

bogus expenditure and illegal payments in CWG (common wealth games project). e) The wordings of Section 69 are such that they, in fact, do not permit any assumption of understatement of amount; rather it requires AO to exactly point out the precise amount paid or received. AO is not only required to prove understatement of purchase price, but also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT USHA GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

bogus expenditure and illegal payments in CWG (common wealth games project). e) The wordings of Section 69 are such that they, in fact, do not permit any assumption of understatement of amount; rather it requires AO to exactly point out the precise amount paid or received. AO is not only required to prove understatement of purchase price, but also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SATYA REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

bogus expenditure and illegal payments in CWG (common wealth games project). e) The wordings of Section 69 are such that they, in fact, do not permit any assumption of understatement of amount; rather it requires AO to exactly point out the precise amount paid or received. AO is not only required to prove understatement of purchase price, but also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

bogus expenditure and illegal payments in CWG (common wealth games project). e) The wordings of Section 69 are such that they, in fact, do not permit any assumption of understatement of amount; rather it requires AO to exactly point out the precise amount paid or received. AO is not only required to prove understatement of purchase price, but also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

bogus expenditure and illegal payments in CWG (common wealth games project). e) The wordings of Section 69 are such that they, in fact, do not permit any assumption of understatement of amount; rather it requires AO to exactly point out the precise amount paid or received. AO is not only required to prove understatement of purchase price, but also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT ANJU GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

bogus expenditure and illegal payments in CWG (common wealth games project). e) The wordings of Section 69 are such that they, in fact, do not permit any assumption of understatement of amount; rather it requires AO to exactly point out the precise amount paid or received. AO is not only required to prove understatement of purchase price, but also

QUETZAL BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed as indicated above

bogus\nmoney/loan amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- for the year\nunder consideration.\n5. I have carefully perused the facts of the case. I have\napplied my mind to the material on record that is report\nof the Inv. Wing, Analysis of data provided by the Wing\nand statements of the assessee. In view of these facts I\nhave no hesitation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALLAN EXTN., DELHI vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus and non-genuine. c. That the bank statement of shareholder shows a peculiar pattern of huge sums that are being credited and debited continuously throughout the year. d. That the audited balance sheet of the shareholder shows that it has no real business activities and that its heavy balance sheet without underlying operation shows that it is meant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

bogus and non-genuine. c. That the bank statement of shareholder shows a peculiar pattern of huge sums that are being credited and debited continuously throughout the year. d. That the audited balance sheet of the shareholder shows that it has no real business activities and that its heavy balance sheet without underlying operation shows that it is meant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

purchased property below the fair market value of the property and the value determined by the Valuation Officer at Rs.30,95,200/- which was taken as a fair market value. The difference of the value of Rs.2,27,000/- (Rs.30,95,200/- minus Rs.28,68,000/-) was made as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Further

DCIT CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. MEENU SHUKLA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. Meenu Shukla, Income Tax, Circle-14(2), C-35, Sector-30, Room No.323, Cr Building, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Afyps8002B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisha Maity, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

50C of the Act at Rs.2,77,24,000/-, against the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.34,58,594/-). The appellant claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act for Rs.2,22,50,000/-, shown as reinvestment for purchase of flat at Sector-111, Gurugram, Haryana. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer denied the appellant’s claim of deduction under section

AVINASH SAINI,GURGAON vs. WARD 1(5), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. Meenu Shukla, Income Tax, Circle-14(2), C-35, Sector-30, Room No.323, Cr Building, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Afyps8002B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Monalisha Maity, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025

50C of the Act at Rs.2,77,24,000/-, against the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.34,58,594/-). The appellant claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act for Rs.2,22,50,000/-, shown as reinvestment for purchase of flat at Sector-111, Gurugram, Haryana. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer denied the appellant’s claim of deduction under section