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

rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Office to grant telescoping benefit, provided the amount of Rs.1,92,65,105/- in respect of the alleged bogus purchases

AHMEDNAGAR INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 7125@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 7126@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ M/S Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aadca9872E Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle– 5(3) Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

rectification order? 6. The powers of the CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act are plenary and co-extensive with that of the AO. The CIT(A) in exercise of powers u/s 251 of the Act in an appeal against the assessment order may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Thus, the CIT(A) u/s

AHMEDNAGAR INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 7125@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 7126@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ M/S Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aadca9872E Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle– 5(3) Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

rectification order? 6. The powers of the CIT(A) u/s 251 of the Act are plenary and co-extensive with that of the AO. The CIT(A) in exercise of powers u/s 251 of the Act in an appeal against the assessment order may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Thus, the CIT(A) u/s

BIO-VET INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act by the AO vide orders dated 09-02-2007, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) , which appeal of the assessee was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) wherein the learned CIT(A) held that both the additions made on account of bogus/unexplained purchases outside books and unexplained commissions falls u/s

M/S. BIO- VET INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act by the AO vide orders dated 09-02-2007, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) , which appeal of the assessee was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) wherein the learned CIT(A) held that both the additions made on account of bogus/unexplained purchases outside books and unexplained commissions falls u/s

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

rectification order passed by learned CIT(A) u/s 154 on 16.02.2017 where in disallowance has been confined to section 69C for AY 2008-09 instead of Section 40A(3) / 40A(3) as was earlier upheld by learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the purchasing parties from whom assessee made purchases were not genuine and only purchase register was produced

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

rectification order passed by learned CIT(A) u/s 154 on 16.02.2017 where in disallowance has been confined to section 69C for AY 2008-09 instead of Section 40A(3) / 40A(3) as was earlier upheld by learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the purchasing parties from whom assessee made purchases were not genuine and only purchase register was produced

ITO,9(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. BRAVIA INTERIOR INFRASTUCTURE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

rectification the appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was pending wherein the addition of bogus purchases was challenged. Therefore the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction u/s 154

QUALITY HEIGHTCON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

rectification\norder u/s 154 dated 16/02/2012 against the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 17/01/2012\nwherein the predecessor Assessing Officer has given full TDS credit claimed by the\nAssessee in its return of income which includes the TDS credit of Rs.24,46,194/.\n5. The Appellant crave leave to add, delete or substantiate any grounds of appeal at the\ntime

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

rectification order passed by Ld CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Act. 23.1 The facts relating to the above said disallowance are identical with the identical disallowances made in AY 2010-11. In paragraphs11 (supra), we have dealt with identical disallowance made in the assessment year 2010-11 36 M/s. Lupin Limited Asst. year

DILIP KANTILAL KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

bogus purchases by holding as under:- 2. ' This case was reopened on the basis of information received from Addl, DIT(Inv), Unit-I, Mumbai regarding information on beneficiaries in the cases of Rajendra Jain and Kamal Kishore Rathi. On examination it is found that DILIP K KAPADIA has taken accommodation entries from NAZAR during

PRASHANT MADHUSUDAN MAHAGAOKAR,THANE vs. DCIT CC 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant for Assessment Year

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income of Rs. 38,52,021/-“ 17. Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the Appellant was asked to submit the details of purchases above 1 Lakh which were submitted. Apart from

ASST CIT 19(1), MUMBAI vs. GANPATRAJ A. SANGHVI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7081 & 7080/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10&2011-12)

bogus purchases. When the assessee submitted that he could not have effected the sales without making corresponding purchases, the AO has taken the view that the assessee could have effected purchases in the grey market, which conclusion is, in fact, not supported by any material. Under this impression only, the AO has further expressed the view that the assessee would

CONCORDE INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), MATUR MANDIR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleconcorde International V. Dcit, Circle 19(1), Ec-B2-8010, Bharat Diamond Bourse Matru Mandir Building Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 1St & 2Nd Floor, Nana Chowk Bhatia Hospital Lane Pan: Aabfc9865G Javji Dadaji Marg, Grant Road (W) Mumbai- 400007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sunil Hirawat Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

u/s. 147 of the Act based on the information received from DGIT (Inv.,), Mumbai, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from various dealers who are said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. In the reassessment Page No. | 2 Concorde International proceedings, the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the purchases made

GIRIGANGA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CC- 5 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him. The Cit(Appeals) Has Failed To Appreciate That Addition On A New Issue Of Long Term Capital Gain

rectification. Since it is a mistake apparent from records the same is rectified u/s.154 of the I.T.Act 1961 and revised the total income as under.- Total income as per order u/s. 143(3) (Under Normal Provision) Rs. Nil/- Computation under special provision of section 115JB (MAT): Net Profit as per PL Account Rs. 91,71,184/- Less; Dividend income

ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLA VAKHARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.2621/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ita No.2380/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

bogus purchases, even then the addition would be Rs.17,25,000/- whereas in the present case, the CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the tune of Rs.19,03,381/- The learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) has analyzed the gross profit for four years viz. 2004-05 to 2007-08 and applied the highest rate, which

ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KAUSHIK KUMAR SUMANLAL VAKHARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C N Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.2621/Mum/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ita No.2380/Mum/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

bogus purchases, even then the addition would be Rs.17,25,000/- whereas in the present case, the CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the tune of Rs.19,03,381/- The learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) has analyzed the gross profit for four years viz. 2004-05 to 2007-08 and applied the highest rate, which

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

rectification under section 154 /254 of the Act is entirely different from the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 because the two provisions operate in different fields. 15. Even, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case