ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

bogus and the entire quantity of opening stock, Purchases and the quantity manufactured opening stock, Purchases and the quantity manufactured opening stock, Purchases and the quantity manufactured during the year under during the year under consideration sold by the assessee consideration sold by the assessee and that the finished goods were Purchased by the and that the finished goods were

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despit basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is e this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despit basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is e this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despit basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is e this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despit basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is e this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be correct in contending that the entire purchase

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

bogus long term additions made on account of bogus long term additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences capital gain on the ground that the evidences capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises of entry found during search at the premises of entry found

M/S. GURJAR GEMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Gurjar Gems Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle 9(3)(2), Plot No. F-17 Midc, Marol Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Area, Opp. Seepz, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Chakala Midc S.O., Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacg 3685 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant Pathak, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 24/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

bogus specially when same has not been challenged while specially when same has not been challenged while specially when same has not been challenged while accepting the quantitive ratios/details disclosed by the accepting the quantitive ratios/details disclosed by the accepting the quantitive ratios/details disclosed by the Appellant. Further, the Assessing Officer has rel Further, the Assessing Officer has relied upon

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

bogus purchases. P a g e | 12 ITA No. 2166& 2167Mum 2025 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 M/s Romil Diam, Mumbai 18. The CIT(A) has also given a finding against the respondent- assessee in paragraph 5.2.1, stating that the respondent-assessee failed to prove the genuineness and source of the purchases and confirmed its involvement in the modus operandi

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction