“accommodation entry”

Income Tax Officer-41.2.2, Mumbai vs. In Coach Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Ward – 41(2)(2) Room No.834, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafi5110R V/S In Coach Builders, Plot No.1A, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (W), ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400083

information received from the office of DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai, and the Sales Tax Authority that the assessee is a beneficiary of an accommodation entry transaction of bogus purchases, proceedings under section 147 were initiated, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Vide order dated 13.03.2014 passed under

Kamalapat Ratanchand Chopra, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

assessed total income at Rs.6,77,64,490/-. Subsequently, case was selected for proceedings u/s.147 on the following grounds: i) The assessee has availed accommodation entries from the Rajendra Jain / Sanjay Choudhary /Dharmichand Jain and their Group Concerns during the year under consideration. Details of the hawala entities from whom ... assessee has obtained accommodation entries for the year under consideration are given as under:- Sr.No. 1. Name of the hawala entities MAYANK PAN AAQHS5732R Amount involved (in Rs.) 1,48,82,347/- ii) The assessee has received sale consideration of Rs.6,35,41,019/- through sale of shares

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Karamtara Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Us Have Proceeded On The Footing That The Issue Involved Is Common & Covered By The Tribunal’S Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Earlier Years, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

herein is not one where the business activity itself is doubted or sales are rejected; rather, it is an allegation that certain suppliers were accommodation entry providers and therefore purchases from such parties cannot be accepted as genuine to the full extent. The Assessing Officer’s case, as noted above

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Karamtara Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Us Have Proceeded On The Footing That The Issue Involved Is Common & Covered By The Tribunal’S Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Earlier Years, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

herein is not one where the business activity itself is doubted or sales are rejected; rather, it is an allegation that certain suppliers were accommodation entry providers and therefore purchases from such parties cannot be accepted as genuine to the full extent. The Assessing Officer’s case, as noted above

Deupty Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Karamtara Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Us Have Proceeded On The Footing That The Issue Involved Is Common & Covered By The Tribunal’S Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Earlier Years, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

herein is not one where the business activity itself is doubted or sales are rejected; rather, it is an allegation that certain suppliers were accommodation entry providers and therefore purchases from such parties cannot be accepted as genuine to the full extent. The Assessing Officer’s case, as noted above

Karamtara Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Us Have Proceeded On The Footing That The Issue Involved Is Common & Covered By The Tribunal’S Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Earlier Years, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

herein is not one where the business activity itself is doubted or sales are rejected; rather, it is an allegation that certain suppliers were accommodation entry providers and therefore purchases from such parties cannot be accepted as genuine to the full extent. The Assessing Officer’s case, as noted above

ACIT, Mumbai City vs. Shri Bishan Jugraj Jain, Mumbai City

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Shri Bishan Jugraj Jain, Room No.640, 301/302, Vaastu Park – A Wing, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Link Road, Malad (West), Churchgate, Mumbai- 400064 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Afgpj7399A (Appellant) (Respondent) :

disregarding the Shri Bishan Jugraj Jain evidentiary findings and statements provided by the Directorate of investigation, which classified the transactions in penny stocks as accommodation entries? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition under Section ... Income Tax Act, 1961, towards commission expenditure alleged to have been paid for arranging accommodation entries, when the Investigation Wing's report indicated a standard rate of commission in such transactions? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in disregarding

Raj Sharadkumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

submits that no direct evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the assessee received any unaccounted cash or was beneficiary of any accommodation entry scheme. The addition has been made purely on suspicion, general investigation reports and surrounding circumstances, without establishing nexus between the assessee and alleged price ... treating the purchase and sale of shares as bogus be deleted. 10. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and contended that entire transaction is accommodation entry. The revenue authorities have rightly treated as bogus transaction. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the order of the revenue authorities