ACIT-CIR.20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HITESH JOITKUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

bogus purchases. 16. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. It is noticed that the addition made by the assessing officer is related to the amount of cash deposited into the bank account of the assessee during the period of demonetization

M/S. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1820/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Bogus purchase of Rs. 112,45,79,754/- which was rightly disallowed by Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the cash deposited in bank account during demonetization

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the\nappeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

purchases were bogus and were merely booked as colorable device to\naccommodate unaccounted cash deposited during the demonetization period and to further

RAKESH NATWARLAL PATEL,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization on 21/01/2017 ii. Purchases w.r.t. to the opening stock for A.Y. 2017-18 were shown from the dubious parties iii.No payments were made against these purchases and only entries of sales made against these purchases. iv. Thus, the stock shown for cash sales is fabricated. v. Cash sales are mainly on account of 22 ct gold ornaments, whereas

RAKESH NATWARLAL PATEL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization on 21/01/2017 ii. Purchases w.r.t. to the opening stock for A.Y. 2017-18 were shown from the dubious parties iii.No payments were made against these purchases and only entries of sales made against these purchases. iv. Thus, the stock shown for cash sales is fabricated. v. Cash sales are mainly on account of 22 ct gold ornaments, whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. RAKESH NATWARLAL PATEL, THANE

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization on 21/01/2017 ii. Purchases w.r.t. to the opening stock for A.Y. 2017-18 were shown from the dubious parties iii.No payments were made against these purchases and only entries of sales made against these purchases. iv. Thus, the stock shown for cash sales is fabricated. v. Cash sales are mainly on account of 22 ct gold ornaments, whereas

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

bogus purchases at rate of 25 per cent of purchases made by assessee from certain parties but sales made to these parties were completely ignored It was - found that purchases and sales with alleged bogus parties were supported by bills and vouchers as well as stock register was maintained in Tally accounting software by - Also, payment of purchase consideration

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

bogus purchases at rate of 25 per cent of purchases made by assessee from certain parties but sales made to these parties were completely ignored It was - found that purchases and sales with alleged bogus parties were supported by bills and vouchers as well as stock register was maintained in Tally accounting software by - Also, payment of purchase consideration

K M TEXTILES EXPORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases and cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2024. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that cash aggregating to ₹16,10,995/- had been deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank during the demonetisation period between 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016. However, instead of confining the enquiry to the said period

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 10(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. K M TEXTILES EXPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases and cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2024. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that cash aggregating to ₹16,10,995/- had been deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank during the demonetisation period between 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016. However, instead of confining the enquiry to the said period

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

bogus purchases was to be deleted Held, yes [Paras 15.9] [In - favour of assessee] IV. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment year 2017-18 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of selling dry fruits Post-demonetization

BINA GOENKA THE JEWELLER LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bina Goenka The Jeweller Llp, Asst. Cit Circle-25(2), 501 Kings Apartments, Juhu 220, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 Between Jw Mariot & Tulip Vs. To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Star, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapfb 7501 C Appellant Respondent

demonetization period was bogus and the cash sale ledger and books were fabricated. These books a sale ledger and books were fabricated. These books are now rejected u/s re now rejected u/s 145 of the Act. 145 of the Act. 1965. The financial result such as profit and loss arising 1965. The financial result such as profit and loss arising

ITO-23(3)(6), MUMBAI vs. SWARNSARITA JEWELLERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1420/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ito-23(3)(6) बिधम/ Swarnsarita Jewellers Room No. 608, Earnest 1/E, Ruby Chamber, Vs. House, Nariman Point, 40/42, Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400021. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400003. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abyfs2206F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Shri Tushar Nagori Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue In This Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.98 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “The Ao”) U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Gold & Diamond Jewellery & Precious Stones. For Ay 2017-18 The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,73,840/-. The Ao Observed That, Search Action Was Conducted In The Case Of One, M/S. Raksha Bullion On 13.11.2016, In The Course Of Which Cash Of Rs.2.50

bogus purchases. He also showed us that, the AO had cherry picked the purchases made from M/s Zee Bangles Pvt Ltd from the stock register and made a false narrative of artificial stock, whereas the stock register, which was placed before us, showed us that preceding the sales made on the night of demonetization

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

demonetization period. A\ngenuine business entity can't have such a huge fluctuation in\nthe business activity that in certain periods it becomes highly\nactive and in other periods it becomes dormant.\n8.5.3 Considering the findings discussed above, I agree with\nthe AO that the appellant concern is a bogus coricerns created\non paper for purpose of providing accommodation entries

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus . Stock position is affected by the sales and purchase. Once the A.O raised the doubts regarding stock position, it is clear that the purchases are also doubtful. Just because the A.O has not specifically mention this line in the Page No. | 10 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Assessment order

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus . Stock position is affected by the sales and purchase. Once the A.O raised the doubts regarding stock position, it is clear that the purchases are also doubtful. Just because the A.O has not specifically mention this line in the Page No. | 10 ITA NO. 1564& 1619/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) M/s. Bandari Gold and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Assessment order

ITO, MUMBAI vs. VIDHISHA GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

bogus in nature, then the assessee would not have received physical stock at all, which is not the case here. Accordingly, the AO was not justified in treating the purchases as unverified purchases, merely for the reason that the notices issued to them were returned unserved, more particularly when the assessee has received the stock purchased through those bills. Hence

M/S. VIDHISHA GOLD PVT.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-11(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

bogus in nature, then the assessee would not have received physical stock at all, which is not the case here. Accordingly, the AO was not justified in treating the purchases as unverified purchases, merely for the reason that the notices issued to them were returned unserved, more particularly when the assessee has received the stock purchased through those bills. Hence