110 (Bom) PCIT v. Hitesh Mody (HUF)

Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2269/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO-19(1)(1), 501, 5th floor, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Appellant Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement Vs. Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, 67, Dr. M.G. Mohimtura Marg, 3rd Kumbharwadalane, Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AHZPM 4942 M Respondent : None Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR : 04/09/2025 29/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed again…

Arham Star, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Arham Star Income-Tax Officer, Cw-2090, Bharat Diamond Ward - 19(2)(2), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (Pan: Aaafs5695M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075308198(1), Dated 30/03/2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, 19(1)(1), Mumbai, U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 22.12.2017 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Purchases Made By The Appellant Were Genuine & Supported By Documentary Material Including The Corroboration Of Sales Made From Such Purchases & There Was Not Material To Show That The Purchases Were Not Genuine & Hence, The Same Could Not Have Been Disallowed. 2. The Nfac Erred In Upholding The Addition On The Basis Of Generalized Statements In The Assessment Order Without The Assessing Officer Having Conducted Any Enquiry In The Matter.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arham Star Income-tax Officer, CW-2090, Bharat Diamond Ward - 19(2)(2), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAAFS5695M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CIT (A), National Fa…

ITO, Mumbai vs. Shemon Jewels, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…?" 8. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. OIT(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd ((2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s. 69C of the Act, eventhough the assessee failed to discharge its onus to…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shemon Jewels, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…?" 8. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. OIT(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd ((2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s. 69C of the Act, eventhough the assessee failed to discharge its onus to…

Anil K. Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2009-10 Anil K. Shah (Huf), Income Tax Officer, 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, Ward-41(2)(1), Sarvodaya Nagar, Vs. Room No. 636, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aadha5072M Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-04-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10, Challenging The Sustenance Of Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 6,96,096/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Anil K. Shah (HUF), Income Tax Officer, 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, Ward-41(2)(1), Sarvodaya Nagar, vs. Room No. 636, Mulund (West), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400080. Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN : AADHA5072M Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain & Shri Shashank Mehta For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16-09-2025 O R D E R PER VIKRAM…

Ilesh Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ilesh Jitendra Shah, Ito Ward 2(3), H-401, Shalom Gove, Plantaria Quereshi Mansion, Ghokhale Complex, Near Flyover Bridge, Vs. Road, Naupada, Bhaynder (W), Thane-401101 Thane (W)-400602. Pan No. Alxps 6180 M Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ilesh Jitendra Shah, ITO Ward 2(3), H-401, Shalom Gove, Plantaria Quereshi Mansion, Ghokhale Complex, Near Flyover Bridge, Vs. Road, Naupada, Bhaynder (W), Thane-401101 Thane (W)-400602. PAN NO. ALXPS 6180 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Satish Mody Revenue by : Mr. B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/08/2025 : 28/08/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed aga…

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anita Dinesh Dhokar, Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

…acts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Lad. CITTA) is right in deleting the penalty, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 5, Mumbai Va Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (2015)172 Taxmann.com 283(Bombay) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein it was held that the 100% addition made on the bogus purchases has been allowed, by rejecting the Hon'ble ITAT decision of estimating the profit rate @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s 69C of the Act, even though, the assessee fai…

Assistant Commissioner-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kdm Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3040/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kdm Impex 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbag, Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aadfk2444F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 2 Acit-19(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kdm Impex

…961 ?" 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5,Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd(2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay)) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/ s.69C of the Act, eventhough the assessee failed to discharge its onus to…

Income Tax Officer 23(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chinar Gems, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…61?" 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CI(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) Dated 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s.69C of the Act, even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus to p…

ITO 23(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chinar Gems, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…61?" 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CI(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) Dated 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s.69C of the Act, even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus to p…

Chinar Gems, Bg Kher Road Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 23(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, the cross-appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…?" 7. " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CI(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) Dated 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s. 69C of the Act, even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus to…

Chinar Gems, Bg Kher Road Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 23(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…61?" 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CI(A), is right in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025)172 Taxmann.com 283 (Bombay) Dated 03.03.2025, wherein the decision of 100% addition made by AO has been allowed, by rejecting the ITAT's decision of estimating the profit rate @12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s.69C of the Act, even though the assessee failed to discharge its onus to p…