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) ..

4 M/s. Sunrise Metallic (India) Pvt. Ltd., materials were supplied to the assessee before using the same against it. The submission of the appellant is that this was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the addition made by the AO and the impugned assessment order is unconstitutional and void. The appellant had submitted copies of purchase

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJIVANI PARENTERAL LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

134,350 5.2.15 Above table indicates that, the sales and purchases are entered in a pre determined pattern with a regulated price band. Moreover, there cannot be such a huge variation in profitability percentage in the same period for the same product as can be seen from the pattern of profit going up and down unless there is a clear

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S- SANJIVANI PARENTERAL LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

134,350 5.2.15 Above table indicates that, the sales and purchases are entered in a pre determined pattern with a regulated price band. Moreover, there cannot be such a huge variation in profitability percentage in the same period for the same product as can be seen from the pattern of profit going up and down unless there is a clear

DCIT CIRCLE- 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SANJIVAINI PARENTERAL LTD., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

134,350 5.2.15 Above table indicates that, the sales and purchases are entered in a pre determined pattern with a regulated price band. Moreover, there cannot be such a huge variation in profitability percentage in the same period for the same product as can be seen from the pattern of profit going up and down unless there is a clear

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

ITO WD 1(5), KALYAN vs. GOPAL RAMSHISH TRIPATHI, BHIWANDI

In the result, the appeal for all three years, are PARTLY

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

section 145(3), the Assessing Officer acquires the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case is Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CI'T 294 ITR 316 (All) where the entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and was upheld. The relevant portion

SHRI. DINESH B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

134). 6.11 The argument that the sales could not have been made without purchases is addressed below. The onus is on the appellant to establish the purchases. When this onus is not discharged, the purchases are disallowed to the extent these are not substantiated. It is not for the Department to doubt sales. The premise

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

bogus purchases by Ld. CIT(A), vide its appellate order dated 08.03.2017 . 3.2 The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) r.w.s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act. During the course of aforesaid assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has received various receipts which stood credited to bank account

MR AMRAT B PRAJAPATI, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaamrat B Prajapati Vs. Ito-19(1)(1) 2Nd Floor 8/10, Room No.15 Ganjawalla Building Matru Mandir Tardeo 2Nd Carpentar Street Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Akspp3697G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

4 Amrat B Prajapati. documentary evidence, such as copies of purchase orders and mode of dispatch of goods, copy of the ledger of the party with invoices raised, details of payment made with copy of the bank account from where the payment was made and such other and further relevant details. The AO also issued notice

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANJULA S. SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

bogus purchases from two parties and, therefore, he made certain addition to the income of the assessee under section 69. He also made an addition of Rs, 55,632 to the income of the assessee holding that the assessee did not pay any sales-tax or mandi tax on the purchases made from the above two parties and, thus, made

OMKAR METAL & ALLOYS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

section 234A, 234B. 234C and 234D of the Act. 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.” 6. The Ld. AR also raised the addition grounds challenging reopening of the assessment. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. OMKAR METAL & ALLOYS CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

section 234A, 234B. 234C and 234D of the Act. 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.” 6. The Ld. AR also raised the addition grounds challenging reopening of the assessment. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. CHIRAG CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

bogus purchases from two parties and, therefore, he made certain addition to the income of the assessee under section 69. He also made an addition of Rs, 55,632 to the income of the assessee holding that the assessee did not pay any sales-tax or mandi tax on the purchases made from the above two parties and, thus, made

ITO, 17(1)(5), MUBAI vs. LATE GUNVANTRAI C. DOSHI (THROUGH L/H SHRI VIPUL GUNVANTRAI DOSHI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

134, Bazargate Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABPD1054E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10 . 11 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22 . 11 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Since common question of law and facts have been raised in both

ITO, 17(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. LATE GUNVANTRAI C. DOSHI (THROUGH L/H SHRI VIPUL GUNVANTRAI DOSHI), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

134, Bazargate Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABPD1054E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10 . 11 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22 . 11 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Since common question of law and facts have been raised in both

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

section 35(2AB) in respect of research and development expenditure by observing as follows: ITA Nos.1645 & 2876/Mum/2019 ITA Nos.2344 & 3945/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Page 33 of 105 21.1 On perusal of the computation of income statement, it is seen that during the year under consideration the assesse company has claimed weighted deduction under section