NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

131 ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 8 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: "19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

131 ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 8 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: "19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section

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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

131 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:\n\"19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section 14A of the Act with respect to an assessee bank. It further held that

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

d, where significant cash deposits during the demonetisation period were also observed. demonetisation period were also observed. 2.2 The survey proceedings revealed that the premises of M/s The survey proceedings revealed that the premises of M/s The survey proceedings revealed that the premises of M/s Trikesh Tradelink Private Limited at K Tradelink Private Limited at Kalbadevi were found locked, albadevi

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

131\nfollowing the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs.\nCIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:\n\"19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana arising under section 14A of the Act with respect to an assessee\nbank. It further held that

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

purchase of property being different persons, and the person for whose benefits immediate or future, the said property is held is different from title holder are required to be established. It is seen from the bare perusal of the SCN u/s 24(1) and Attachment order u/s 24(3) and 24(4), the Initiating Officer is unsure and vague

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. 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

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

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

SUDESH DHANRAJ MURPANA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudesh Dhanraj Murpana Income Tax Officer – 23(3) (1) (Huf) Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant 401 Somdhan Bldg, Perry Road, Cross Road Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai 400050

purchase and sale of shares were genuine transactions. 8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in alleging that the Appellant has indulged in bogus transactions by indulging in penny stock shares of M/s. ACI Infocom although the same had been done on the floor of the stock exchange. 9. That

ACIT-15(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SURYA FERROUS ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase transaction taking note of the fact that the Assessee had already disclosed gross profit of 8.5%, which was considered by the CIT(A) to be comparable and acceptable to the margins prevailing in the industry in which the Assessee was operating. However, the CIT(A) rejected Assessee’s challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings. 7. Being aggrieved

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 ()

D E R Per N.K. Choudhry (JM): These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the independent orders even dated 02/06/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi/ Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [in short, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Ys