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

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

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

BRAWNY NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 56 (2) viia read with rule 11UA. It is bounden on the assessee to furnish reliable valuation determining such share premium as in its case for the AY 2015-16, from a qualified valuer. The assessee has not done the same, nor has any submission filed before me in this regard. The AO has carried out the exercise

ROBUST RESORTS & HOSPITALITY LLP,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Robust Resorts & Hospitality Llp, Vs. Dcit, J-290, Second Floor, Saket, Central Circle-14, New Delhi – 110 017. New Delhi. Pan: Aarfr7213D

56(2)(x) of the Act in the operative part of the order dated 29th September 2022. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29th September 2022 cannot be sustained. The allegations in the affidavit in reply that assessee has claimed tenancy rights as colourable device in order to get an exemption under the provisions

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

2,99,56,36,930 1,08,45,52,031 2017-18 53,28,35,658 53,28,35,658 1,21,763 4,87,053 Total 3,47,73,43,098 3,47,73,43,098 9,00,53,54,461 3,13,16,21,562 4. The record shows that, during the search and seizure operations, the statement

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

2,99,56,36,930 1,08,45,52,031 2017-18 53,28,35,658 53,28,35,658 1,21,763 4,87,053 Total 3,47,73,43,098 3,47,73,43,098 9,00,53,54,461 3,13,16,21,562 4. The record shows that, during the search and seizure operations, the statement

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

2,99,56,36,930 1,08,45,52,031 2017-18 53,28,35,658 53,28,35,658 1,21,763 4,87,053 Total 3,47,73,43,098 3,47,73,43,098 9,00,53,54,461 3,13,16,21,562 4. The record shows that, during the search and seizure operations, the statement

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

2,99,56,36,930 1,08,45,52,031 2017-18 53,28,35,658 53,28,35,658 1,21,763 4,87,053 Total 3,47,73,43,098 3,47,73,43,098 9,00,53,54,461 3,13,16,21,562 4. The record shows that, during the search and seizure operations, the statement

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

56(2)(x), a go by and treat the stamp duty value of the flat at\nRs.11,68,99,000/- as from unexplained source under Section 69 of the Act. There\nis no reference to Section 36(2)(x) of the Act in the operative part of the order\ndated 29th September 2022. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

bogus accommodation entries in the shape of unsecured loans however, as discussed above, the revenue has failed to controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A) who not only appreciate the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee but also make verification at his own end in terms of the powers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

bogus accommodation entries in the shape of unsecured loans however, as discussed above, the revenue has failed to controvert the finding of the ld. CIT(A) who not only appreciate the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee but also make verification at his own end in terms of the powers

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDRA SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

x) Failed to establish that the products manufactured /produced by the assessee are ethical and allowable under different law agencies in the field of drugs and cosmetics and no banned drugs are manufactured or produced by the assessee. - Doubt expressed by A.O. is without any basis. xi) The assessing officer rejected the books of account by invoking provisions of section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SUBASH CHANDER SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

x) Failed to establish that the products manufactured /produced by the assessee are ethical and allowable under different law agencies in the field of drugs and cosmetics and no banned drugs are manufactured or produced by the assessee. - Doubt expressed by A.O. is without any basis. xi) The assessing officer rejected the books of account by invoking provisions of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2004-05 Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Asstt. Year: 2009-10

x) Failed to establish that the products manufactured /produced by the assessee are ethical and allowable under different law agencies in the field of drugs and cosmetics and no banned drugs are manufactured or produced by the assessee. - Doubt expressed by A.O. is without any basis. xi) The assessing officer rejected the books of account by invoking provisions of section

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.” 15. During the hearing before us, the fact of production of the parties by the ld. CIT(A) in the presence of the Assessing Officer has not been in dispute. The fact that the parties supplied milk to the assessee company could not be disputed. The AO has also held that milk purchases were made not from farmers