BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/- in made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ assessment year 2009 t year 2009-10 and Rs.9,87,466/- in assessment year in assessment year

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

14,75,919/-. The appeal of the . The appeal of the assesse is partly assesse is partly allowed.” Hon’ble ITAT has observed that the purchases form Ms Harmony Hon’ble ITAT has observed that the purchases form Ms Harmony Hon’ble ITAT has observed that the purchases form Ms Harmony Exim Pvt ltd were bogus, but the purchases would

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

14,75,919/-. The appeal of the . The appeal of the assesse is partly assesse is partly allowed.” Hon’ble ITAT has observed that the purchases form Ms Harmony Hon’ble ITAT has observed that the purchases form Ms Harmony Hon’ble ITAT has observed that the purchases form Ms Harmony Exim Pvt ltd were bogus, but the purchases would

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

section 148 dated 29/03/2016. A copy of the reasons recorded was provided to the assessee ded was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 30/05/2016 ide letter dated 30/05/2016 of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

section 148 dated 29/03/2016. A copy of the reasons recorded was provided to the assessee ded was provided to the assessee vide letter dated 30/05/2016 ide letter dated 30/05/2016 of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected the of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also rejected

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 ()

14,434/- instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence

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 ()

14,434/- instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence

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 ()

14,434/- instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence

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 ()

14,434/- instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase instead of 100% on account of unexplained bogus purchase without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence

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 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including purchases to the satisfaction

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is sustained. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is sustained. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied. This has been challenged by the Revenue by way of present appeal. 14

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied. This has been challenged by the Revenue by way of present appeal. 14

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied. This has been challenged by the Revenue by way of present appeal. 14

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied. This has been challenged by the Revenue by way of present appeal. 14