SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical fiding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical fiding that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

DCIT,CIRCLE-511,MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HATIM GLAZING AND CLADDING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

134/- towards interest on the aforesaid loan. A.Y. 2011–12 Addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under section 68 on account of unsecured loan alleged to have been received from M/s. Amit Diamond; and disallowance of Rs.3,69,000/- towards interest thereon. A.Y. 2012–13 Deletion of addition of Rs.1,77,85,393/- made under section 69C towards purchases from

DCIT CIRCLE511, MUMBAI vs. HATIM GLAZING AND CLADDING PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

134/- towards interest on the aforesaid loan. A.Y. 2011–12 Addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under section 68 on account of unsecured loan alleged to have been received from M/s. Amit Diamond; and disallowance of Rs.3,69,000/- towards interest thereon. A.Y. 2012–13 Deletion of addition of Rs.1,77,85,393/- made under section 69C towards purchases from

DCIT CIRCLE511, MUMBAI vs. HATIM GLAZING AND CLADDING PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

134/- towards interest on the aforesaid loan. A.Y. 2011–12 Addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under section 68 on account of unsecured loan alleged to have been received from M/s. Amit Diamond; and disallowance of Rs.3,69,000/- towards interest thereon. A.Y. 2012–13 Deletion of addition of Rs.1,77,85,393/- made under section 69C towards purchases from

DCIT, CIRCLE-511, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HATIM GLAZING AND CLADDING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

134/- towards interest on the aforesaid loan. A.Y. 2011–12 Addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under section 68 on account of unsecured loan alleged to have been received from M/s. Amit Diamond; and disallowance of Rs.3,69,000/- towards interest thereon. A.Y. 2012–13 Deletion of addition of Rs.1,77,85,393/- made under section 69C towards purchases from

ITO WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIDDHESHWAR IMPEX PVT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

134,\nMedows Street,\nMumbai-400002\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AANCS2173E\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी\n..\nRespondent/प्रतिवादी\nAppellant by :\nShri Nagnath Pasale\nRespondent by :\nNone\nDate of Hearing\n14.06.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n26.08.2024\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-\nThis appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

4,91,608 ========= The assessee did not claim the above said expenses while computing return of income, but claimed the same before the AO. It was submitted that though the expenses were related to the earlier year, yet the liability has accrued and crystallized during the current year. Accordingly, it was claimed as deduction during the year under consideration. Since

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of shares. Thus, the addition must be deleted. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. At the outset, we observe that the Assessee has raised 6. the legal ground (2 c) with regard to the jurisdiction of the assessing

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHARAT RATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y. : 2018-19

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 18.04.2021 and assessed the income at Rs.153,78,33,679/- making an addition of Rs.75,11,83,810/-. The addition/disallowance was made on the following counts :- “a. Disallowance of Rs.88,59,529/- being amount of inter branch purchase as bogus purchase in total income. b. Disallowance of Rs.69