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

search and seizure action in the cases of sh n in the cases of sh Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain and Rajendra Kumar Jain, it was revealed Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain and Rajendra Kumar Jain, it was revealed Gautam Bhanwarlal Jain and Rajendra Kumar Jain, it was revealed that the assessee firms obtained bogus accommodation entry assessee firms obtained bogus accommodation entry assessee

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

search & seizure, Smt. Rajkumari Singh, director and promoter of Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd confessed in her statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, that the group was indulging in procuring bogus purchase

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

search & seizure, Smt. Rajkumari Singh, director and promoter of Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd confessed in her statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, that the group was indulging in procuring bogus purchase

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

M/S. HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LT D SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. .CENT. CIR.-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases of over Rs. 57 crores detected during the course of search and seizure action 57 crores detected during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PENINSULA LAND LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

purchases and therefore, the same are being taken-up collectively for adjudication. 19.1 The facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation was carried out by the Income Tax Department ITA No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 M/s peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai. u/s. 132 of the Act on 29.04.2014 in the case of the Appellant Company and its associate concerns

PRANKIT EXPORTS, MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1441/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Prankit Exports, Ito 25(3)(2) 301 Shviling Apartments, Mumbai Juhu 10T H Road, V. Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafp2359K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

search and seizure operations u/s 132 that his companies/entities were involved in providing accommodation entries like bogus purchases, sales, unsecured

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. S P INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No.6580/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11

search & seizure on their premises that they are only providing accommodation entries. In view of the above 5 ITA 6580/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2010-11 and also in view of the detailed findings given by the AO in his assessment order, I hold that there is no infirmity in the action of the AO in treating these purchases as bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 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.4813/Mum/2017

searches conducted by Maharashtra VAT authorities, there were seizure of huge cash from these alleged hawala dealers which were withdrawn by these hawala dealers from their bank accounts to return the same back after deducting their commission to the parties from whom cheques were received against bogus bills. The AO observed that the assessee had failed to discharge onus cast

DCIT CC 3(1) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WINDWORLD (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5714/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit. C.C.-3(1), M/S Wind World (India) Limited Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Enercon Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ (India) Ltd. A-9, Enercon Tower, M.K. Road Veera Desai Road, Veera Vs. Mumbai- 20 Industrial Estate, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaace0319D (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी /Assessee) :

search & seizure proceedings conducted under Sec.132 on the assessee on 14.03.2013. The CIT(A) observed that the A.O adopted the aforesaid bogus purchases/turnover ratio of 1.04% as a yardstick and worked out the bogus purchases

SAMKIT DIAMONDS EXPORTERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases except the information received from the investigation wing based on the search/survey action and a statement recorded from an unconnected party. AO himself accepted the purchases/ sales and expenses and question of rejection of books does not arise in such a situation and the AO stating in the assessment order that the books of accounts are rejected

PRATIBHA PIPES AND STRUCTURALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri. Ravish Sood ()

bogus purchases of Rs. 43»14>O76/- under the head business income; such addition is excessive and liable to be reduced. 3. On the given facts, circumstances and legal propositions; Hon. CIT (A) erred in passing the order in absence of reasonable opportunity of making the submissions to the assessee in principles of natural justice and such order

ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S CHINAR GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

search and seizure action conducted in the case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his son, who indulge in providing accommodation entries like bogus purchases