SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchases. Accordingly, there cannot be any error in the order of the ld. AO in this regard. Hence the revision order u/s 263 of the Act M/s. Soma Enterprise Ltd., passed by the ld. PCIT in this regard deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 7.9. We find that assessee vide letter dated 05/09/2022 had raised the following additional

M/S.TRUE VALUE STEELS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-29(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

bogus purchase so in these circumstances, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The facts of the present case is quite similar to the fact of the case decided by Hon‟ble ITAT in ITA. No.3563/M/2016 dated 10.11.2016 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. CIT LTU. The relevant finding

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

u/s 263 of the Act against the assessment order dated 28.04.2016 because the subject A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. matter on which the Ld. PCIT had found fault with i.e. regarding bogus purchases from Shri Banwarlal Jain Group amounting to Rs.2,99,33,584/- was already before the First Appellate Authority

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

u/s 263 of the Act against the assessment order dated 28.04.2016 because the subject A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. matter on which the Ld. PCIT had found fault with i.e. regarding bogus purchases from Shri Banwarlal Jain Group amounting to Rs.2,99,33,584/- was already before the First Appellate Authority

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

u/s 263 of the Act against the assessment order dated 28.04.2016 because the subject A.Y. 2008-09 to 2010-11 Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. matter on which the Ld. PCIT had found fault with i.e. regarding bogus purchases from Shri Banwarlal Jain Group amounting to Rs.2,99,33,584/- was already before the First Appellate Authority

GOLD STAR DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

bogus purchases before the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed was pending before the ld. CIT(A) at the time of passing order u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel after referring the decision of coordinate bench of the ITAT in the case of Sanghvi Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No. 3178/Mum/2018 dated 30.11.2018 submitted that once

GOLD STAR DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

bogus purchases before the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed was pending before the ld. CIT(A) at the time of passing order u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel after referring the decision of coordinate bench of the ITAT in the case of Sanghvi Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No. 3178/Mum/2018 dated 30.11.2018 submitted that once

AADIT METAL TRADE PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

bogus made system purchase 1 IIC Ltd Aadit 2010-11 17.02.2011 2010-11 15.03.2011 7.81 Metal to Trade 11.03.2011 2 IINFC Aadit 2010-11 21.02.2011 2010-11 15.03.2011 10.5 Ltd. Metal to Trade 25.02.2011 Total 18.31 6. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs. 1119.02 + 0.7324 (18.31x0.04

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

revised the rate of profit margin from 8% to 6% in respect of gems and jewellery business. Therefore, concluded that it would be appropriate if the reasonable profit margin arising to the assessee on account of the alleged hawala purchases was adopted at 8%, rejecting the AO’s action treating the entire purchase as bogus and adding the same

M/S. PANTIME FINANCE CO. P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-13(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision u/s 263 of the Act. Hence the ld. PCIT passed an order setting aside the re-assessment order dated 20.11.2018 for denovo adjudication of the issue of sale of shares of Aditi & Finance Pvt Ltd. 4. We find that in the appeal preferred against the section 263 order , the assessee has even challenged the validity of re-assessment u/s

SMT. NITI NITIN KUMAR DIDWANIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

u/s 263 for revision of the order of assessment, on the ground, that now when the A.O had held that the entire purchases were bogus