NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

BHAVESH PUNMAJI DEVASI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1) (2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay by moving an application supported with an affidavit that the appellant Shri Bhavesh Punmaji Devasi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) had filed an appeal against the assessment order in form 35 before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35 [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)], but the consultant of the assessee has neither

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases is not considered for enhanced deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act.” Page No. 38 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. 47. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is filed by the assessee with a delay of 598 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases is not considered for enhanced deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act.” Page No. 38 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. 47. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is filed by the assessee with a delay of 598 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard

MR. ROHIT VALLABHDAS SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

condonation of delay of 2121 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. He placed strong reliance on the affidavit filed by the assessee notarised on 16.07.2025. Since the present appeal is against the revisionary order passed u/s.263 after a significant delay of almost six years, details and the factual position of the proceedings concluded earlier in this regard

PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

delay being being being unintentional unintentional unintentional and and and supported supported supported by by by bona bona bona fide fide fide Pinkal Dilip Bhansali circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is circumstances, the same is condoned. Consequently, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. admitted for adjudication

VAIBHAV DIPAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vaibhav Dipak Shah Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2(3) 9 & 10, Dadarkar Building, Mumbai Vs. 5/7 V.P. Road, C. P. Tank, Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aagps 2674 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Om Kandalkar Revenue By : Ms. Vranda U Matkari Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned

condoned as delay caused due to ‘sufficient reason’. 2 Vaibhav Dipak Shah vs. Dy. CIT 4. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.1,32,45,297/- on account of peak balance of alleged bogus purchase

ASHOK KUMAR GHAMANDIRAM ARNAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Delay condoned. (A.Ys.2010-11, 2008-09 & 2011-12) Ashok Kumar G Arnaiya vs. ITO 3. As the facts are identical in all these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 484/Mum/2023 as the lead case. 4. The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing

M/S C MAHENDRA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 3851/Mum/2019 as the lead case. (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. C Mahendra Exports Limited vs. DCIT 4. The assessee has challenged the grounds of addition amounting to Rs.42,30,72,132/- being

M/S C MAHENDRA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 3. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 3851/Mum/2019 as the lead case. (A.Ys.2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s. C Mahendra Exports Limited vs. DCIT 4. The assessee has challenged the grounds of addition amounting to Rs.42,30,72,132/- being

INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE vs. MULJIBHAI ARJANBHAI SAKARIA, THANE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 3. When the present appeal was called for hearing neither anyone appeared for/on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. 4. In this appeal

RAXIT HARSHAD SHAH,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Raxit Harshad Shah Ito, Ward 41(3)(3) 321 B Rustomjee Aadarsh Heritage, Mumbai Vs. Aadarsh Dughalaya Lane, Malad West, Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No. Anjps 3133 J (Appellant) : (Respondent)

bogus purchases from various parties alleged to be accommodation entry providers. The assessee has also challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kaveri Rice identical facts and circumstances?” 4. At the outset

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kaveri Rice identical facts and circumstances?” 4. At the outset

GORDHANBHAI GOVINDBHAI KALATHIYA,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO- (2) (1), THANE, THANE, MAHARASHTRA

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases by holding that once the purchases are found to be non genuine, the entire claim is liable to be disallowed and there is no scope for restricting the disallowance to a percentage of purchases. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the said judgement by dismissing the SLP. 8. Having heard the parties and perusing the material

K P SANGHVI & SONS LLP,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm K P Sanghvi & Sons Llp Asst. Cit-19(2) 12A-03, Crescenzo, C-38/39, Mumbai Vs. G – Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaafk 8390 F (Assessee) (Respondent) :

Delay condoned. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and wholesale trading of cut and polished diamonds and had filed its return of income 2 K P Sanghvi & Sons LLP vs. Asst. CIT dated 28.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.41,43,49,462/- during the year under consideration. The assessee’s case

C M ALLOYS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Accordingly, Appeal Has Been Dismissed As ‘Unadmitted’. The Details Of Number Of Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeals Are As Under:-

bogus purchases by treating the entire purchases as explained. 4. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a background behind that assessee could not represent the case before any of the authorities below and this has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay

C M ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Accordingly, Appeal Has Been Dismissed As ‘Unadmitted’. The Details Of Number Of Days Delay In Filing Of The Appeals Are As Under:-

bogus purchases by treating the entire purchases as explained. 4. Before us ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a background behind that assessee could not represent the case before any of the authorities below and this has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay