SATISH R. RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

bogus, therefore, all the purchases are liable to be added to the income of the assessee in accordance with law. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “AO was not required to force their attendance. It was for the appellant to produce them as per Civil Procedure Code which applies

DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PCI ANALYTICS P.TLD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

138/- and the entire amount was outstanding as on 31.03.2009. The appellant had cleared the payment in the next financial year on 19.04.2009. The payment was settled 11 months after the purchase. 2. Maulik Enterprises Ledger extract for theF.Y.2007-08 indicate that there was no transaction during the year. During the year the' appellant had made purchases to the tune

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

JITENDRA M KITAVAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

purchaser and genuineness of transaction was established - Whether transaction could not be treated as bogus and impugned amount could not be treated as an undisclosed income of assessee - Held, yes [Para 64] [In favour of assessee]” In the case of Gangeshwari Metal (P)Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under : “ There are two types

MAX FLEX & IMAGING SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to the genuineness of purchases it should have triggered a proper enquiry / investigation at their end to ascertain the genuineness of assessee

MAX FLED & IMAGING SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to the genuineness of purchases it should have triggered a proper enquiry / investigation at their end to ascertain the genuineness of assessee

BOMBAY SEALINK BUILDERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to the genuineness of purchases it should have triggered a proper enquiry / investigation at their end to ascertain the genuineness of assessee

MAX FLEX & IMAGING SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to the genuineness of purchases it should have triggered a proper enquiry / investigation at their end to ascertain the genuineness of assessee

MAX FLEX & IMAGING SYSTEMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to the genuineness of purchases it should have triggered a proper enquiry / investigation at their end to ascertain the genuineness of assessee

ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA MADANLAL KITAWAT (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

purchaser and genuineness of transaction was established - Whether transaction could not be treated as bogus and impugned amount could not be treated as an undisclosed income of assessee - Held, yes [Para 64] [In favour of assessee]” In the case of Gangeshwari Metal (P)Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under : “ There are two types

RUPESH CHIMANLAL SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(3), KALYAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Appeal No.6179-6182/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs. Ito 3(3) Prop. Of Savla International 2Nd Floor, 16, Royal Tusk, B.S. Road Rani Mansion Dadar (W) Murbad `Road, Kalyan Mumbai – 400 028 (West), Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amrps4468B अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellants By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Shri Nagin Parikh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Rm Madhavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-I, Thane Dated 25.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With 147 Of The Act. As The Facts & Issues Are Identical All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2.1 Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) In Sustaining The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Act In All These Appeals. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits, The Reopening Of 2 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

section 133(6) to the so called bogus suppliers. That being the case, if the A.O. or the learned CIT(A) were not satisfied with the evidences produced by the assessee and still had doubt with regard to the genuineness of purchases it should have triggered a proper enquiry / investigation at their end to ascertain the genuineness of assessee

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

bogus long-term capital gains and share capital etc. According to the Revenue, ACIAL was being managed and controlled by Shri Shah and thus in light of his statement given in the course of his search, the & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd professional fees paid to ACIAL was treated

VIPIN BHIMRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

section 69C 5.1.1 In the order of assessment, the AO observed that information was received from Sales Tax Authorities that certain parties had admitted before them that they had issued bogus bills to various parties without Shri Vipin B. Shah selling any material and the assessee in the case on hand had made so called purchases amounting

ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. VIPIN B SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

section 69C 5.1.1 In the order of assessment, the AO observed that information was received from Sales Tax Authorities that certain parties had admitted before them that they had issued bogus bills to various parties without Shri Vipin B. Shah selling any material and the assessee in the case on hand had made so called purchases amounting

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL TRANSPORT SERVICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Ito 41(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Anil Transport Service Room No.830, Kautilya B-102, Harshad Apartment, E.E. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East Highway Behind Everad Nagar Sion Mumbai-400051 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Co No.90/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anil Transport Service Vs Ito 41(1)(1) B-102, Harshad Apartment, Room No.830, Kautilya Bhavan, E.E. Highway Behind Everad Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai-400051 Nagar Sion East, Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.V.Dharkar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026

section 131 of the Act. In his statement, Shri Upadhyay admitted that he was the Managing Director of M/s. SNB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and was also overseeing all associate concerns, including the assessee. He further admitted that the group concerns had booked purchases aggregating to Rs.46,73,63,536/- from various parties, which were alleged to be non-genuine. Based

CIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies \nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these \ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the \ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies\nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these\ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the\ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal