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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has raised following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of alleged tax sought to be evaded on estimation disallowance made of Rs.5,18,153/- 2% on bogus

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has raised following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of alleged tax sought to be evaded on estimation disallowance made of Rs.5,18,153/- 2% on bogus

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has raised following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of alleged tax sought to be evaded on estimation disallowance made of Rs.5,18,153/- 2% on bogus

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has raised following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of alleged tax sought to be evaded on estimation disallowance made of Rs.5,18,153/- 2% on bogus

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has raised following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,76,120/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of alleged tax sought to be evaded on estimation disallowance made of Rs.5,18,153/- 2% on bogus

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchases is excluded. Thus, gross profit ITA No.787-790/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 margin declared by the Appellant on normal sales is 6.31%. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of present case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co (supra) we hold that aforesaid rate

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is\nin appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on unexplained\ndeposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal.\n4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on\nrecord including Paper Book containing pages 1 to 127 filed by the\nassessee and copy of various decisions filed by both

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is\nin appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on unexplained\ndeposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal.\n4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on\nrecord including Paper Book containing pages 1 to 127 filed by the\nassessee and copy of various decisions filed by both

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 69C of the Act. The said amount was accordingly t. The said amount was accordingly Balaji Bullions And Commodities India Private Balaji Bullions And Commodities India Private 7 Limited ITA No. 3755 & 3915/MUM/2025 ITA No. added to the total income of the assessee. added to the total income of the assessee. The relevant finding of th The relevant finding

DCIT-191, MUMBAI vs. BHAVIN P MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

section 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2019. In the reasons recorded again, the AO referred to the information gathered during the course of search action at the premises of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and accommodation entry of bogus purchase received by the assessee from the concerns controlled and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, however, this time amount of bogus purchase mentioned

BHUPENDRA SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CC 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhupendra Singh Karnawat 6/1974, 104, Jayshree, Harikrishna Acit,Cc-1(3) Comp. Dalgiya Sheri, Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mahindharapura, Mumbai-400 020 Surat -395 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aikpk8272C Sankhala Exports Pvt. Ltd Acit Cc-1(3) 5, Navyug Nagar, Teen Batti, Pratishtha Bhawan, Vs. Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs1855M

bogus sales has been confirmed in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. With respect to the purchase and sale transactions entered into by the assessee and resulting gross profit thereon is made by the learned Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee despite categorically noting that assessee is one of the persons, who acted under the instructions

SANKHALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3_ , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhupendra Singh Karnawat 6/1974, 104, Jayshree, Harikrishna Acit,Cc-1(3) Comp. Dalgiya Sheri, Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mahindharapura, Mumbai-400 020 Surat -395 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aikpk8272C Sankhala Exports Pvt. Ltd Acit Cc-1(3) 5, Navyug Nagar, Teen Batti, Pratishtha Bhawan, Vs. Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs1855M

bogus sales has been confirmed in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. With respect to the purchase and sale transactions entered into by the assessee and resulting gross profit thereon is made by the learned Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee despite categorically noting that assessee is one of the persons, who acted under the instructions

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

120 in case of Anita Gupta vs. ITO dated 14th March 2023, 14th March 2023, held that where assessee had been held that where assessee had been served notice under section 148A(b) at address given on PAN served notice under section 148A(b) at address given on PAN served notice under section 148A(b) at address given

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

120 in case of Anita Gupta vs. ITO dated 14th March 2023, 14th March 2023, held that where assessee had been held that where assessee had been served notice under section 148A(b) at address given on PAN served notice under section 148A(b) at address given on PAN served notice under section 148A(b) at address given

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

section 68 Whether since assessee had submitted details of purchase of shares, payment for purchase of shares through banking channel, and had produced order of SEBI where assessee along with others had been exonerated in any manipulation, it clearly proved genuineness of transaction Held, yes Whether further since Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry about genuineness of these transaction

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

section 68 Whether since assessee had submitted details of purchase of shares, payment for purchase of shares through banking channel, and had produced order of SEBI where assessee along with others had been exonerated in any manipulation, it clearly proved genuineness of transaction Held, yes Whether further since Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry about genuineness of these transaction

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases were not supported by any documentary evidences and therefore they were Page No. 3 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. mere book entries against which deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed, as the purchases itself were not genuine and hence deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be allowed on the same