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

546 held that where Assessing Officer made addition by disallowing expenses on purchases on ground that an information was received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries on account of bogus purchases, since Assessing Officer had not disputed corresponding sales transactions, purchases also could not be bogus and, thus, impugned addition made on account of bogus

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

546 held that where Assessing Officer made addition by disallowing expenses on purchases on ground that an information was received from sales tax department that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries on account of bogus purchases, since Assessing Officer had not disputed corresponding sales transactions, purchases also could not be bogus and, thus, impugned addition made on account of bogus

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 153A of the Act on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search. This issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee. Para 5.2 of his appellate order extracted earlier refers. Since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted by the assessee, we decline to interfere and endorse the findings

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 153A of the Act on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search. This issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee. Para 5.2 of his appellate order extracted earlier refers. Since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted by the assessee, we decline to interfere and endorse the findings

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 153A of the Act on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search. This issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee. Para 5.2 of his appellate order extracted earlier refers. Since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted by the assessee, we decline to interfere and endorse the findings

THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11,

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 153A of the Act on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search. This issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee. Para 5.2 of his appellate order extracted earlier refers. Since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted by the assessee, we decline to interfere and endorse the findings

OMNITEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Omnitel Technologies Vs Ito Pvt.Ltd., B-220, Florence Ward-3(1) Marvel, Sushant Lok-Iii, Gurgaon Chakkarpur B.O., Sikanderpur Ghost (68), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan-Aafca2421B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Omnitel Technologies Pvt. Vs Additional/Joint/ Ltd., B-220, Florence Deputy/Assistant Marvel, Sushant Lok-Iii, Commissioner Of Sector-57, Gurgaon, Income Tax, National Haryana-122002 Faceless Assessment Pan-Aafca2421B Centre, Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 10.12.2024 & 06.11.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.

bogus of INR 45,06,444/- and further invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act therefore, they are taken together for consideration. ITA Nos.353 & 73/Del/2025 15. Ld.AR for the assessee argued that assessee has made purchases and goods received were supplied to M.P. Police Housing Organization and Ministry of Shipping, Delhi. The assessee also filed the respective correspondence

OMNITEL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM HARYANA vs. ITO WARD - 3(1) GURGAON, GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Omnitel Technologies Vs Ito Pvt.Ltd., B-220, Florence Ward-3(1) Marvel, Sushant Lok-Iii, Gurgaon Chakkarpur B.O., Sikanderpur Ghost (68), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan-Aafca2421B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Omnitel Technologies Pvt. Vs Additional/Joint/ Ltd., B-220, Florence Deputy/Assistant Marvel, Sushant Lok-Iii, Commissioner Of Sector-57, Gurgaon, Income Tax, National Haryana-122002 Faceless Assessment Pan-Aafca2421B Centre, Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 10.12.2024 & 06.11.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.

bogus of INR 45,06,444/- and further invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act therefore, they are taken together for consideration. ITA Nos.353 & 73/Del/2025 15. Ld.AR for the assessee argued that assessee has made purchases and goods received were supplied to M.P. Police Housing Organization and Ministry of Shipping, Delhi. The assessee also filed the respective correspondence

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GANPATI HYDRO POWER PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

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

546/- from 37 parties. The Assessing Officer observed from the purchase list that major purchases were made from few creditors and major sales were made to two parties, named Actif Corporation Ltd. & Eskay Knit India Ltd for Rs.14.00 crs. each and the address of both debtors is same. The address of the seller, M/s. Krishna Knitwear Technology Ltd., from whom

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NANDAN AUTO TECH LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

bogus and after allowing a deduction of 6.35% against export sale of Rs.65,87,872/- added back the balance amount of Rs.61,69,546/- as unexplained credit. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee came in appeal before the learned CIT(A), both on the issue of reopening of the assessment as well as addition made

K.D.P. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Kdp Infrastructure Vs. Dcit, Cc Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited C-78, Sector 63, Noida Cgo Complex-I, Kamala Uttar Pradesh – 201301 Nehru Nagar, Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacs1691J Appellant .. Respondent

bogus purchases for which payment were made from the books addition u/s 69 could not have been made. Reliance was placed by Ld. Counsel on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sarika Jain and other decisions supported the case are as under: i. PCIT (Central)-2 Vs. Param Diary Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 546 (Delhi

SHRI PUNEET JAIN,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 144. e) That the assessment order was framed treating the sundry creditors of Rs. 17,54,46,941/- as bogus however the total sales and closing stock was Rs. 45,05,86,546/- was confirmed. The how the total creditors of Rs. 17,54,46,941/- became bogus when proprietor’s capital and secured loan are genuine. That

ACIT, CIRCLE- 34(1), NEW DELHI vs. MADHUR JAIN, DELHI

In the result, the solitary ground of appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Madhur Jain, Vs. Circle-34(1), C-2/4, Community Centre- New Delhi I, Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Agrpj0254C (Appellant) (Respondent)

546/- were unexplained and disallowed the expenditure claimed by the Assesee and computed the total income of Rs. 12 41,10,187/-. On the question of bogus purchases, the Tribunal concurred with the Revenue‗s views that such purchases were made from bogus parties. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had issued notice to all the parties from whom

CIT vs. NANDAN AUTO TECH LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 143(2) and 142(1). The Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 31st December, 2007 held that the respondent-assessee had made bogus purchase to the extent of Rs. 16,34,83,676/- and had also shown bogus exports of Rs.61,69,546

PR.CIT-06 vs. NANDAN AUTO TECH LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S GARG FORGINGS AND CASTING LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

546/- made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) further restricted to Rs. 80,22,802/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on account of alleged bogus purchases and export sales under Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

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

546/- on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 80IB/IC on alleged ground that appellant had violated provisions of section 80IA(5) in as much as business losses pertaining to financial year 2001-02 and 2002-03 had not been taken into account while computing deduction under section 80IB/IC of The Act. (ii) That action of lower authorities is illegal

ALEXIS GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), DELHI, DELHI

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

546 (Delhi) 7. The assessee challenged the order before the ITAT. The ITAT after considering the entire material on record and submissions of the parties, inter alia, held that the purchases under the head "tanki" have been duly recorded in the books of account and is reflected in the audited financial statements. The total purchases including Milk Tanki purchases have

VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

546-549 of PB for A.Y. 2006-07.In the similar trade, the director of the company Sh. Rajesh K Kanodia, in his proprietary concern has shown GP rate of 0.01% (as mentioned in the order of the ITAT in his case for A.Y. 2005-06), while in the case of the assessee it is merely 0.0075%. Since the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

546-549 of PB for A.Y. 2006-07.In the similar trade, the director of the company Sh. Rajesh K Kanodia, in his proprietary concern has shown GP rate of 0.01% (as mentioned in the order of the ITAT in his case for A.Y. 2005-06), while in the case of the assessee it is merely 0.0075%. Since the assessee