ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

131 to any of the parties. h. The hon. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions h. The hon. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions h. The hon. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of the Id. A.O. i. Your appellant prays that

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 40A(3) of the Act is of the Act is attracted. The Ld. CIT also also directed the Assessing Officer to decide t Assessing Officer to decide the issue of bogus purchase in the light he issue of bogus purchase in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of N.K. Proteins Ltd. of the decision

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 40A(3) of the Act is of the Act is attracted. The Ld. CIT also also directed the Assessing Officer to decide t Assessing Officer to decide the issue of bogus purchase in the light he issue of bogus purchase in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of N.K. Proteins Ltd. of the decision

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 40A(3) of the Act is of the Act is attracted. The Ld. CIT also also directed the Assessing Officer to decide t Assessing Officer to decide the issue of bogus purchase in the light he issue of bogus purchase in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of N.K. Proteins Ltd. of the decision

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 40A(3) of the Act is of the Act is attracted. The Ld. CIT also also directed the Assessing Officer to decide t Assessing Officer to decide the issue of bogus purchase in the light he issue of bogus purchase in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of N.K. Proteins Ltd. of the decision

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

Section 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, furth w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only er clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect of the books

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -23(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

131 was issued. Therefore, the initial dispute was with regard to genuineness of the transaction regarding purchase of wool from the parties, the assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, mere mentioning of Section 68 did not affect the addition made when transactions were found bogus

ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KHUSALDAS MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31/12/2009 wherein, the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.3,87,89,670/-. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for assessment year 2007-08 dated 31/12/2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals)-31, Mumbai. The CIT(Appeals) disposed off the assessee’s appeal vide the impugned

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.

131 of the Act. It needs to be appreciated that the said party had filed evidences such as return of income, audit report, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account to prove their identity and genuineness of the transaction. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, where the purchase party itself

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) ..

bogus purchases, sales, unsecured loans, share capital etc.. The A.O observed from the information received from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee is also beneficiary who has obtained accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 77,70,765/- through M/s. AVI Exports , one of the group concerns of Shri. Rajendra Jain Group, during the impugned assessment year under consideration

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

bogus bills to various parties and was involved in issuing accommodation bills. The AO further observed that Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta Later on retracted from his statement. The Assessee was asked to justify the genuineness of purchases made from made from Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta and his family members. The Assessee filed a confirmation and an affidavit of Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta