JOGINDER KUMAR & SONS HUF,PANIPAT vs. PCIT ROTAK, ROTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljoginder Kumar & Sons Huf Pcit, 352/6, Near S D Modern School, Rohtak. Panipat-132103. Vs. Pan- Aachj6257L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dhurv Goel, Ca Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (‘The Pcit’ In Short) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.03.2025 Wherein The Ld. Pcit Held The Assessment Order As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Terms Of Explanation 2 Of Section 263 & Direct The Ao To Conduct Fresh Enquiries & Passed The Speaking Order.

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 69C are also reproduced in the show cause notice

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act. The provisions of section 69C are as under: “69C Where in any financial year

MANOJ KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

disallowed u/s 69C of the Act and not u/s 37(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 69C are as under

FEATHER INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance from Section 69C to Section 68 is not permissible in similar facts. The ld. counsel next submitted that the invoices

FEATHER INFOTECH P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee in ITA No891/Del/2022 concerning

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance from Section 69C to Section 68 is not permissible in similar facts. The ld. counsel next submitted that the invoices

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act as they were not incurred for business purposes. The ld. PCIT, Rohtak examined the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 of the ld. AO and concluded that since the same was passed without applying the provisions of section 69C

SUNITA GROVAR,PANIPAT, HARYANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ROHTA, ROHTAK HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C of the Act and also disallowance made by the AO in his assessment order which is reproduced above. As is evident from bare perusal of the order of the AO, disallowance related to expenses incurred by the assessee in relation to subcontractor which were not found to be genuine. Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. S K INTEGRATED CONSULTANTS, DELHI

sections": [ "143(3)", "263", "69C", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of contract charges under Section 69C is justified when

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

disallowance. In the second paragraph above, the Assessing Officer has alternatively applied Section 69C. Section 69C is also for unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), MORADABAD, MORADABAD vs. RITU BHANDULA, MORADABAD

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and assessee cross\nobjection is allowed in the aforesaid manner

disallowance of purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. The assessee claimed that the purchases were duly recorded in their books of accounts and were supported by documentary evidence.", "held": "The Tribunal held that Section

RAVINDER BAWEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and II. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

RAVINDER BAWEJA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, NES DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and II. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

RAVINDER BAWEJA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

69C or section 69D, if such Income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- 1. The amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and II. the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

ACIT, DELHI vs. PAYAL GARG, DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit Vs. Payal Garg, Delhi-110002 H. No. 03, Sector 19 I Block, Pocket A, Rohini, Delhi 110085 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agjpg 9417 E Appellant .. Respondent

disallowed the purchase aggregating to Rs.4,51,90,010/- from the six suppliers treating them as bogus and added the same u/s. 69C read with Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

disallowance of purchases under Section 69C of the Act and observed that Section 69C of the Act applies only when

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

disallowance of purchases under Section 69C of the Act and observed that Section 69C of the Act applies only when

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

disallowance of purchases under Section 69C of the Act and observed that Section 69C of the Act applies only when

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

disallowance of purchases under Section 69C of the Act and observed that Section 69C of the Act applies only when