PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is sustained. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is sustained. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

section 133(6) of the Act issued by the Assessing 7 ITAs 2509 & 2510/Mum/2023 Vinipul Inorganics Foods Pvt Ltd Officer to the alleged bogus parties were either returned unserved or were not replied to and the assesses also on being specifically asked, failed to file the documents for showing the evidence qua movements of goods from supplier to the Assessee

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PVT LTD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

section 133(6) of the Act issued by the Assessing 7 ITAs 2509 & 2510/Mum/2023 Vinipul Inorganics Foods Pvt Ltd Officer to the alleged bogus parties were either returned unserved or were not replied to and the assesses also on being specifically asked, failed to file the documents for showing the evidence qua movements of goods from supplier to the Assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

116,624,231 on account of bogus purchases, he held that assessee has purchased from nine exempt private limited, MD of show Distributors private limited and with the exempt private limited whether they can be termed as bogus entities whose name A. The fourth or sixth layer only based on said transaction flowing down, crossing 4 - 6 layers or more

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. ITA 4463/Mum/2016 3 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend , alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not wish to press ground

PUSHPAK AUXICHEM P. LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

purchase and sale bills are cancelled bills. No actual purchase of goods or sale of goods was made by the assessee. The delivery of the goods was also not effected. This fact was verifiable from the inward register lying seized with the Department in which such transactions are not recorded. The assessee-company has also not received any payment from

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) :

Section 147 of the Act by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for A. Y.2006-07”. Thus, assessee's claim that there is no mention of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment is erroneous as the same

DCIT CIR.7(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PJL CLOTHING INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010 - 2011 Dcit Circle 7(3)(1) Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai बनाम/ Unit No.19, Shree Madhu Estate, Pandurang Budhakar Vs. Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2782R

purchases. It is applicable only in cases where the payment of expenditure exceeding Rs. 20,000 is made otherwise than by a crossed cheque or crossed demand draft. Here is a case where not only the benefit by way of avoidance of various kinds of taxes such as excise duty, sales-tax at various stages of inputs are there

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

Appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 148 of the Act. 30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as invalid and the said notice is correctly issued by JAO considering the entire gamut of the case and the provisions of the Act and the faceless regime. This additional ground

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

116 (RAJKOT) Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1991-92 - During assessment proceedings, additions were made on account of suppressed oil production and bogus purchases

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. SOURABH NAVALKISHOR GARG, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for both years under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

116/-. The AO opined that commission should be charged for bogus entries in case of purchases also at Rs 100 per lakh on total purchase turnover of Rs 80,26,85,888/-, taxed commission income on purchases at Rs 8,02,686/- while finalizing assessment u/s 143(3) rws 147 on 20-12- 2016. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld charging

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOURABH NAVALKISHOR GARG, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for both years under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

116/-. The AO opined that commission should be charged for bogus entries in case of purchases also at Rs 100 per lakh on total purchase turnover of Rs 80,26,85,888/-, taxed commission income on purchases at Rs 8,02,686/- while finalizing assessment u/s 143(3) rws 147 on 20-12- 2016. On appeal, CIT(A) upheld charging

MENORA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathamenora Associates Vs. Ito-27(1)(1) 4Th Floor, Tower No.6 101, Titan House M.P. Vaidya Marg Railway Station Ghatkopar(E) Commercial Complex Mumbai-400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 703

116/- which is highly excessive and unjustified. 2 Menora Associates 3. The Id CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in alleging that purchases are bogus purchases without bringing on record any independent and reliable evidence. 4. The Id CIT (A) has erred in facts that the Firm has show a profit of 26% of the total revenue

INNOVATORS FACADE SYSTEMS P.LTD,THANE vs. ACIT CIR 2, THANE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

purchases in question held to be bogus-Impugned addition deleted.” cannot be 18. As per verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Kahder Khan & sons, 300 ITR 157, Section 133A does not empower any IT Authority to examine any person on oath, hence, mere statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining