ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

KUMAR BROTHERS CO. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

KUMAR BROTHERS CO. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

KUMAR BROTHERS CO. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. KUMAR BROTHERS CO. , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

KUMAR BROTHERS CO. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases will meet the ends of justice. Holding thus, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 25% of the25% of such purchases i.e. 2,14,73,050/- (25% of 8,58,92,200), thereby, according the appellant a relief of Rs. 6,44,19,150/- (8,58,92,200- 2,14,73050). 15. Aggrieved with the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIJENDRA SURENDRA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS and challans, bank statements reflecting payments made to suppliers, form CD showing quantitative details, entries in the purchase book along with daily stock register etc. Apart from this, there is also an affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transactions along with confirmation of accounts by the two parties and copy of bank statements of the two parties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIJENDRA SURENDRA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS and challans, bank statements reflecting payments made to suppliers, form CD showing quantitative details, entries in the purchase book along with daily stock register etc. Apart from this, there is also an affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transactions along with confirmation of accounts by the two parties and copy of bank statements of the two parties

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIJENDRA SURENDRA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS and challans, bank statements reflecting payments made to suppliers, form CD showing quantitative details, entries in the purchase book along with daily stock register etc. Apart from this, there is also an affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transactions along with confirmation of accounts by the two parties and copy of bank statements of the two parties

M/S. RHC HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

TDS and challans, bank statements reflecting payments made to suppliers, form CD showing quantitative details, entries in the purchase book along with daily stock register etc. Apart from this, there is also an affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transactions along with confirmation of accounts by the two parties and copy of bank statements of the two parties

ACIT CC-18 vs. NEENA HARDEEP SINGH,

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

bogus purchases. Ld. AO also made an observation that the payments made against these purchases have been withdrawn from the bank in cash on the same day. He thus concluded that it appears that this cash was used to be sent to a foreign country by Hawala channels to be received as sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. 2.1 Further

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-50(1), NEW DELHI vs. THE SILK FACTORY, DELHI

bogus purchases amounting to\n21.83 Crores should be sustained.\n5.\nLd. AR has submitted that the Assessee has filed all the documents in\nhis possession to justify the claim of bonafide purchases from above said 10\nparties, which clearly establishes the bonafide purchases and the said\ndocuments are acknowledged to have been filed by the AO in para

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

bogus purchase\ndisallowance/addition of ₹13,52,382/- as well whereas the Revenue's\ntwin substantive grounds seek to uphold the same in entirety along\nwith Section 69A addition of ₹40,18,132/- hereinabove (supra).\n4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and\nRevenue's vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands.\nLearned Counsel representing assessee has filed

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

bogus purchase\ndisallowance/addition of ₹13,52,382/- as well whereas the Revenue's\ntwin substantive grounds seek to uphold the same in entirety along\nwith Section 69A addition of ₹40,18,132/- hereinabove (supra).\n4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and\nRevenue's vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands.\nLearned Counsel representing assessee has filed

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

bogus purchase\ndisallowance/addition of ₹13,52,382/- as well whereas the Revenue's\ntwin substantive grounds seek to uphold the same in entirety along\nwith Section 69A addition of ₹40,18,132/- hereinabove (supra).\n4.\nWe have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and\nRevenue's vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands.\nLearned Counsel representing assessee has filed

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

bogus purchase\ndisallowance/addition of ₹13,52,382/- as well whereas the Revenue's\ntwin substantive grounds seek to uphold the same in entirety along\nwith Section 69A addition of ₹40,18,132/- hereinabove (supra).\n4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and\nRevenue's vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands.\nLearned Counsel representing assessee has filed