ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

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

bogus purchase. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unvouched business expenses. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus purchase : 20,69,898 iii. Add: Claim of depreciation : Rs. 4,83,994 iv. Add: Interest Payment disallowed : Rs. 1,20,213 v. Add: Personal expenses : Rs. 18,482 1,52,50,621 3. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES i. As per the return : NIL ii. Unexplained Sundry Creditor : Rs. 54,29,787 ii. Unexplained in capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MOHD RIZWAN, DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Delhi. (Appellant)

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and the Assessing Officer has estimated the income on alleged bogus purchases @ 25%. However, we observe from the record that Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account and not brought on record the reasons for the same. After considering the submissions of the assessee

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus rental income of Rs.60,000/-. 6. Explanations were called from the assessee in respect of the rental income shown and interest on housing loan claimed. Not convinced with the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.319152/-. 7. The quarrel travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in ITA No.307-311/Del/2013 dismissed the appeal

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus rental income of Rs.60,000/-. 6. Explanations were called from the assessee in respect of the rental income shown and interest on housing loan claimed. Not convinced with the reply of the assessee the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.319152/-. 7. The quarrel travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in ITA No.307-311/Del/2013 dismissed the appeal

SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

purchase of above property . Assessee submitted that the above payment of Rs. 46,26,000/- is made from over-draft account. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer as no further information was filed. Further addition of Rs. 8,000/- was made by disallowance under Section 80C of the Act. Thus the total income of the assessee was assessed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN PROP., NOIDA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

purchase of above property . Assessee submitted that the above payment of Rs. 46,26,000/- is made from over-draft account. This contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer as no further information was filed. Further addition of Rs. 8,000/- was made by disallowance under Section 80C of the Act. Thus the total income of the assessee was assessed

DCIT, NAJIBABAD vs. DR. SIRISH KUMAR, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Sirish Kumar, Circle – Najibabad, Prop. Shree Hospital, Kiratpur Najibabad Road, Bijnor. Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.65/Del/2016 [In Ita No.4578/Del/2015] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sirish Kumar, Vs. Dcit, Prop. Shree Hospital, Circle – Najibabad, Kiratpur Road, Bijnor. Najibabad Pan :Apjpk1955N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Assessee By Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Ca

bogus. C.O. No.65/Del/2016 12.1 The Ld. DR relying on the finding of the learned Assessing Officer submitted that the creditworthiness of Sh. Rajendra Kumar was not substantiated by the assessee and thus action of the Assessing Officer was justified. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the finding of facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer

ITO, WARD- 41(1), NEW DELHI vs. AASTHA GOEL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

80C 2 and Rs.2,655/- u/s 80TTA of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee computed her taxable income at Rs.4,50,000/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the purchase deed of the property located at E-886, Narela Industrial Complex DSIIDC Narela, Delhi that the assessee had jointly purchased 50% undivided share

SHRI ADITYA MALLA,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

80C at Rs.1,00,000/-, the assessee had claimed TDS at Rs.84,394/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the contents and difference as per 26 AS and return of income. 2.2 Ld. A.O. after examination, found that the assessee had not disclosed salary income of Rs.30,47,245/ received from two other institutions against which

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. BRIJ GOPAL CHAUHAN, DELHI

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito Brij Gopal Chauhan Ward- 60 (4), Room No.308- Vs A-7, Kondli F, Vikas Bhawan, I. P. Estate Delhi – 110096 New Delhi -110002 Pan Ahfpc5855M (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase of Paints & Sanitary stores. He filed his return of income on 11.06.2010 declaring total income at Rs.4,62,460/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the following reasons as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order :- 1. “Assessee has filed return of income for the A. Y. 2010-11 manually instead of filing

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 153C r.w.s 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,45,44,630/-. A search and seizure action was carried out on the Rama and Param Group and other related cases on 28.02.2014 at various residential and business premises. Certain incriminating documents relating to the assessee were found during the said search which pertain to the impugned