DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is computed in accordance with

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is computed in accordance with

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

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

section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 234C and 234D of the Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under

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

Section 143(2) of the Act , while return of income was originally processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act. In order to verify genuineness of these purchases, the AO issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the 1961 Act to these aforesaid seven parties at the addresses furnished by the assessee but , however, the said notices were returned un-served

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

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

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

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

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

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

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

10(SC), it has been held t has been held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases. establish the genuineness of purchases. iv. Assessee did not produce the purchase

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

26,193 18,30,019 15,68,280 65,56,050 65,56,050 80,09,332 Enterprises Vimalnath 10,07,776 32,25,653 16,57,681 22,65,013 22,09,095 64,33,341 64,33,341 31,00,940 Corporation Navkar 39,94,616 39,94,616 23,87,388 Corporation Mahavir

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

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

26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised to ₹ 60,28,51,896.50/ 896.50/-. This amount was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined by aggregating purchases from parties listed by the was determined

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10 grounds of appeal, they are either inter-connected or are general in nature. Hence, the grounds are decided together in terms of the discussion made hereafter. The re- assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10 grounds of appeal, they are either inter-connected or are general in nature. Hence, the grounds are decided together in terms of the discussion made hereafter. The re- assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by disallowing 100% of the purchases of Rs.1,01,43,657/- from M/s Reliance Steel Traders