M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

Purchase\norders, Bank statements etc.) to demonstrate the genuineness\nof the aforesaid transactions.\n4.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts of\nthe case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming\nthe findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises,\nVikram Stoves & Fabricators, as being non-genuine/ bogus,\nsolely based on irregularities observed

ADVANTAGE INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT (CENTRAL)-II, NEW DELHI

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

bogus Expense have been claimed against CSR receipts\nwhich is evidenced by the agreement with Accordis Health\ncare Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that a Survey was conducted\non Accordis Health on 25.06.2012 and the ITI did field\nenquiry on entities from which Accordis made purchases.\nStatement of the director of Accordis Sh. Raman Kapoor was\nrecorded who could

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

bogus Expense have been claimed against CSR receipts which is evidenced by the agreement with Accordis Health care Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that a Survey was conducted on Accordis Health on 25.06.2012 and the ITI did field enquiry on entities from which Accordis made purchases. Page 14 of 61 Advantage India Vs.PC.I.T Statement of the director of Accordis

NIDHIKA REHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(2)(2), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mrs. Nidhika Rehani, Vs Acit, G-7, Sector-6, Gautam Budh Circle-5(2)(2), Nagar, Noida, U.P.-201301. G.B.Nagar, Noida Pan-Arjpg8733C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca & Ms. Shakshi Rustagi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeal) Ghaziabad/10645/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & E- Filed Her Return Of Income On 31.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 32,08,530/-.The Assessee Is Engaged In The Manufacturing & Trading Of Readymade Garments & Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Dsyngreen. Based On The Information Available On Record That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts During Demonetization In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn), Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. After Considering The Submissions Made, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) At A Total Income Of Inr 2,03,49,108/- By Making Following Additions/Disallowances:-

section 115BBE on this addition. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 23. Ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee is with respect to the addition of INR 35,32,658/- by holding the purchase made from two parties as bogus. 24. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that assessee made purchases from

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

bogus purchases from M/s Akshay Sales Corporation and completely ignored the submissions of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred into not taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the appellant during the course of the proceedings, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction being undertaken by it with

JAKSON LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

bogus purchases from M/s Akshay Sales Corporation and completely ignored the submissions of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred into not taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the appellant during the course of the proceedings, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction being undertaken by it with

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

bogus purchases from M/s Akshay Sales Corporation and completely ignored the submissions of the appellant. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred into not taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the appellant during the course of the proceedings, substantiating the genuineness of the transaction being undertaken by it with

SHRI RAM AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 72(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Sh. Ram Agrawal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lig 25, Phase-1, Ward-72(1), Mahavidhya Colony, Delhi Mathura Pan: Aerpa9566Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr.

Section 80GGC of the Act, and 80G(5) of the Act, which is also bogus and to that extent Assessment Order passed by assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. There is a saying that The 'tail' cannot wag the 'dog'. When there is a fraud, then the details and documents submitted by the assessee, before

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

80G was also granted w.e.f AY 2022-23 to AY 2026 27 dt.31.08.2021 (Pg 1) • Search u/s 132 was conducted on 14.10.2020 in case of Manoj Kumar Singh (husband of one of the trustees of society), his close associates and a few transacting parties with whom Manoj Kumar Singh had entered into transactions. The school run by the society

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

80G Rs. 3,00,000/- 73 3 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal, the same is reproduced below

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

Purchase\norders, Bank statements etc.) to demonstrate the genuineness\nof the aforesaid transactions.\n4.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts of\nthe case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming\nthe findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises,\nVikram Stoves & Fabricators, as being non-genuine/ bogus,\nsolely based on irregularities observed

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

Purchase\norders, Bank statements etc.) to demonstrate the genuineness\nof the aforesaid transactions.\n4.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts of\nthe case in upholding the order of Ld. AO, thereby confirming\nthe findings that the transactions with Samarth Enterprises,\nVikram Stoves & Fabricators, as being non-genuine/ bogus,\nsolely based on irregularities observed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VITCOM CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

80G of Rs.14,00,000/- in A.Y.2009-10.” 3. Disallowance u/s 37(1)- Rs.65,00,000/-: The Assessing Officer made the disallowance holding that there were discrepancies with regard to dates of seminar, bills, cheques encashment and ledger a/c and inflow of one client gives lot of push to the revenue and its unique services is the result of high value

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 115JB of the Act. In support of its contention, the assessee relied upon various judicial precedents including:  CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. [TS-410-HC-2019 (Cal.)], wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that capital receipts which are not in the nature of income cannot form part of book profits under section 115JB