ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHANKARLAL BHIMRAJ BHANSALI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases/accommodation entry was not correct. The assessee has claimed that entire purchases and sales were genuine & verifiable with reference to the documents- purchase bills, stock register, bank statement showing payment to these concerns. Since the entire sales have been accepted by the AO in terms of quantity and amount, then as per the assessee there is no scope

GOVINDBHAI TRIBHUVANDAS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases of Rs.10,16,50,735/- instead of 100% addition made by the AO. 5. The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, mainly on the reduction of addition to 12.5%, is in appeal before us, whereas the Assessee by filing separate appeal has challenged the addition restricted to 12.5% on account of disallowance of purchases alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. GOVINDBHAI TRIBHUVANDAS PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases of Rs.10,16,50,735/- instead of 100% addition made by the AO. 5. The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, mainly on the reduction of addition to 12.5%, is in appeal before us, whereas the Assessee by filing separate appeal has challenged the addition restricted to 12.5% on account of disallowance of purchases alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

entries (providing bogus bills for commission without genuine transaction of purchase & sales of goods), the AO, reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; and taking note that the assessee had shown to have transacted with the dealers (identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra), he directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

entries (providing bogus bills for commission without genuine transaction of purchase & sales of goods), the AO, reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; and taking note that the assessee had shown to have transacted with the dealers (identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra), he directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

entries (providing bogus bills for commission without genuine transaction of purchase & sales of goods), the AO, reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; and taking note that the assessee had shown to have transacted with the dealers (identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra), he directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction

INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHEETAL EXPORTS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2987/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), बिधम/ Sheetal Exports 2Nd Floor, Room No. 233, 202 Triveni 21 Lajpatrai Vs. Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Road, Vile Parle (W) Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400056 Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs0869L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & Dharmil Zaveri Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Directing The Ao To Restrict Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- From 100% To 3% Of The Bogus Purchases Made Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/-.

bogus/accommodation entries, but since the AO has accepted the sales (turn-over) of trading shown by the assessee, the entire purchases shown by assessee to the tune of Rs.2,67,00,986/- cannot be disallowed because without purchases, there cannot be sales. So the Ld. CIT(A) has presumed that the assessee would have purchased the goods from the grey

NARENDRA SHANTILAL BAPNA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-28(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries. It does not prove that the assessee has carried out the impugned transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of share prices. In absence of any such material, enquiry and examination, the addition made pertaining to receipt of sale

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

purchase and sale of these shares\nas bogus/accommodation entries and the same has been brought\nto tax u/s.68 of the Act.\nIn view of the above stated facts, the addition made by the\nassessing officer is sustained and the appeal of the appellant on\nthese grounds is dismissed.\n6.0 Ground No.5 is directed against the addition

SHRI VIKRAM N. CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries. It does not 10 Vikram N. Chandan., AY 2015-16 prove that the assessee has carried out the impugned transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of share prices. In absence of any such material, enquiry and examination

SALONI GIRRAJKISHOR AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries. It does not prove that the assessee has carried out the impugned transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of share prices. In absence of any such material, enquiry and examination, the addition made pertaining to receipt of sale

REKHA RAJESH JOGANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries. It does not prove that the assessee has carried out the impugned transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of share prices. In absence of any such material, enquiry and examination, the addition made pertaining to receipt of sale

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

purchase.\n\n8. 4. Further, from the perusal of the note from the office of\nDirectorate of Income Tax (Invest), New Delhi, referred by the\nld. DR in his submission and as extracted above, we find that it\ndoes not in way suggest that scrip of CTL is suspended or has\nfailed to comply with listing requirements of the stock

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

bogus/accommodation entry. From the information received from Deputy Directorate of Investigation, Unit-5(4), Mumbai, it is seen that an amount of Rs.56,86,529/- has been reflected under the head of Penny Stock transaction for the year under consideration. 3. Further, information has also been received that Shri Jagdish T. Ramani, Ashwin Rathod, Vibha Sachin Rawate and Shankar Jadhav

NIKHIL ASHOK SHIVDIKAR,PAREL MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20 2 4 MUMBAI , LALBAUG PAREL

Bench: him.

bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Shares’] of INR.51,92,689/- which was claimed

SIRONA DENTAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

bogus/accommodation entry of Long Term Capital Gains arising from purchase/sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Splash Media and Infra Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Shares’] of INR.51,92,689/- which was claimed

ITO-24(3)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. RAMA RAJIV JAGDALE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries. It does not prove that the assessee has carried out the impugned transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of share prices. In absence of any such material, enquiry and examination, the addition made pertaining to receipt of sale

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus, sham and part of racket of accommodation entries. It does not prove that the assessee has carried out the impugned transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of share prices. In absence of any such material, enquiry and examination, the addition made pertaining to receipt of sale