M/S. PARAS PLASTIC PROCESSORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

purchase from some parties, who were engaged parties, who were engaged in issuing only bogus bills without any in issuing only bogus bills without any physical delivery of goods, the physical delivery of goods, the Assessing Officer recorded recorded reasons to believe that income escaped assessment believe that income escaped assessment and and reopened

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

reopening of the assessment involving bogus purchases based on reopening of the assessment involving bogus purchases based on reopening of the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

reopening of the assessment involving bogus purchases based on reopening of the assessment involving bogus purchases based on reopening of the assessment

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

reopening is bad in law. 2. Invalid Assessment Procedure: 2. Invalid Assessment Procedure: a. The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts while passing a. The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts while passing a. The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts while passing assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. assessment

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

reopening is bad in law. 2. Invalid Assessment Procedure: 2. Invalid Assessment Procedure: a. The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts while passing a. The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts while passing a. The Id. A.O. has erred in law and on facts while passing assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. assessment

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

purchase bills which was alleged to be bogus. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment was alleged to be bogus. Accordingly

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 purchase from Sri Anil Chokara (Prop. Of Keshav Impex) (Prop. Of Keshav Impex) during the year under consideration, the during the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

reopened the assessment by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Income-tax Act, 1961( In short ‘ the Act’) , 1961( In short ‘ the Act’) . In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had taken bogus bills amounting

KHANGARAM K DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

reopening the assessment, therefore the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer cannot be expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant suppliers. Now by way of Finance Now by way of Finance Act 2021, w.e e.f. 01/04/2021

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

reopening the assessment, therefore the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer cannot be expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant suppliers. Now by way of Finance Now by way of Finance Act 2021, w.e e.f. 01/04/2021

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

reopening the assessment, therefore the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer cannot be expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant expected to verify those purchases from the assessee or the relevant suppliers. Now by way of Finance Now by way of Finance Act 2021, w.e e.f. 01/04/2021

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

reopening of the concluded assessment . Notice u/s. 148 was issued by the AO to the assessee on 25.02.2015 which was duly served on the assessee on 07.03.2015. Thus it can be seen that notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO within four years from the end of the assessment year and also originally no assessment was framed

SEJAL EXPORT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment was stated that there is inflation in expenditure while making the assessment the Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit on such alleged bogus purchases

ARIHA DIAMOND JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment was stated that there is inflation in expenditure while making the assessment the Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit on such alleged bogus purchases

SEJAL EXPORT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment was stated that there is inflation in expenditure while making the assessment the Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit on such alleged bogus purchases

ARIHA DIAMOND JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment was stated that there is inflation in expenditure while making the assessment the Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit on such alleged bogus purchases

ARIHA DIAMOND JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment was stated that there is inflation in expenditure while making the assessment the Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit on such alleged bogus purchases

SEJAL EXPORT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

reopening the assessment was stated that there is inflation in expenditure while making the assessment the Assessing Officer estimated the Gross Profit on such alleged bogus purchases