ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KDM IMPEX, MUMBAI

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

deemed to the be the income of the assessee shall\nnot be allowed as a deduction under any head of income.\nFrom a perusal of the provisions of section 69C it is clear that\nthe, following conditions are required to be met:-\n(i) The taxpayer has incurred expenditure;\n(ii) he offers no explanation about the source

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

SHRI ANAND M GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Shri Anand M. Gupta V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road {Through Legal Heir Mumbai - 400020 Mrs. Madhu Anand Gupta} B-723, Sector – C Mahanagar, Lucknow – 226006 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabae8078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav Sheth Shri Ashish Kumar Department Represented By :

bogus. 4 Estate of Shri Anand M. Gupta 5. In response assessee by relying on various case laws submitted that assessee had purchased 25000 equity shares of TTL (old name: Omnitech Petroleum Ltd.) for ₹.2,50,000/- through a broker Skunk Tradelink Limited on 24.02.2012. This is off-market transaction and these shares were later dematerialized. Owing to share split

JAGUAR SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

dividend, interest, etc. The Assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 on 30/10/2018 declaring business loss of INR.55,83,331/-. The case of the Assessee was not picked up for regular scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) the Act. However, subsequently, re- assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of\nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and\ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of\nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on\nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on\ntrading of shares in assessment year

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of\nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and\ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of\nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on\nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on\ntrading of shares in assessment year

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of\nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and\ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of\nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on\nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on\ntrading of shares in assessment year

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of \nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and \ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of \nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on \nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on \ntrading of shares in assessment year

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of\nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and\ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of\nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on\nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on\ntrading of shares in assessment year

DY.CIT CC -5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of\nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and\ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of\nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on\nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on\ntrading of shares in assessment year

DCIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of \nthe Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and \ninterest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of \nassessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation on \nMotor Car in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and loss on \ntrading of shares in assessment year

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

DCIT, CIR-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVEGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases and has never retracted such admission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has not been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

KAISHAR INTERIORS PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly Ground No.16 raised by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

bogus 9 Assessment Year 2010-2011 purchases. 14. We find that the Assessing Officer had disallowed deduction claimed by the Assessee in respect of purchases aggregating to INR.39,25,193/- made from the following parties: S. No. TIN of the Purchase Party Hawala PAN Amount purchasing (in INR.) party 1. 27910623885V Donear Trading Pvt. Ltd. AACCD4946K 60142 2. 27450374741V Nikhil

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground raised by the revenue is allowed

bogus purchases and has never retracted such\nadmission before any of the authorities below. Moreover, during the assessment proceedings,\nthe assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the\nimpugned purchases. Thus, the primary onus to establish the genuineness of the purchases has\nnot been discharged. Consequently, the reliance placed on the orders

SUNJEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

bogus purchase and the lower authorities have also failed to discuss the reliability of the evidences furnished by the assessee in detail. For this reason, we deem it fit to remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the documentary evidences of the assessee and if required shall admit any further evidences which