DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowing the assessee’s entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course of Section 132

KUSUM MITTAL ,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowance made and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) was conducted on 23/08/2017 in the case of M/s Raj Cotton Group, wherein the assessee case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , DELHI vs. RAVINDRA SINGH, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the Appeals of the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2456/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 2457/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 2458/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2459/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15)

section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the demand notice is always consequential to the assessment order and has been served within reasonable period of time. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -2 vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub- section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERSN N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub- section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

132 or requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. Sub- section (2) of section 153A of the Act provides that if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or any other legal provision, then the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowing the assessee's entire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the course of Section 132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowing the assessee's entire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the course of Section 132

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowing the assessee's entire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the course of Section 132

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowing the assessee's entire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the course of Section 132

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowing the assessee's entire purchases of ₹8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons' statements recorded in the course of Section 132

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

132(4). 13. In the present case, during the course of the statement made by the assessee, during the course of the search on 4 March, 2010, that she had lent Rs.16 crores in aggregate to three individuals during financial year 2009-2010. This was in response to a query by the revenue officials during the course of search when

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

132(4). 13. In the present case, during the course of the statement made by the assessee, during the course of the search on 4 March, 2010, that she had lent Rs.16 crores in aggregate to three individuals during financial year 2009-2010. This was in response to a query by the revenue officials during the course of search when

M/S NARANG DISTILLERY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss