INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARORA BROTHERS FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as being without merit

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

144B of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 01/03/2023, at assessed income of INR 2,50,59,759/- after making additions of INR 23,371,849/- under Section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the Assessee had taken accommodation entries for bogus purchase

JAGUAR SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 144B of the Act was completed on 19/03/2024 and the Assessing Officer made addition of 6% on the alleged bogus purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.94,30,14,937/-made on account of bogus purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.94,30,14,937/-made on account of bogus purchase

EXECUTIVE TRADING CO. PVT LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. COMM OF INCOME TAX (A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment order passed is invalid

M/S SHAH TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Shah Traders, Dw-6251, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra East Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabfs6536J V/S Dcit, Circle – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

bogus purchases from M/s Swastik Corporation, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted a copy of purchase invoices, details of bank accounts, details of transactions with M/s Swastik Corporation, ledger account of M/s Swastik Corporation

HAKIMUDDIN SALEH PORBUNDERWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

144B of the Act, date of order 28/12/2022. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, has erred by disallowing 100% of the purchase of Rs.57,39,833/- from M/s. Jay Enterprises under section 69C of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 115BBE of the IT Act as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made. ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the findings of the AO that no documentary evidences such as transport details, delivery

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 115BBE of the IT Act as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases made. ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 M/s. Anantam 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the findings of the AO that no documentary evidences such as transport details, delivery

L.K. EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. ITO MUM-W-(199)(91), WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14

bogus purchases of Rs.2,22,57,137/- made by the assessee was required to be added to the taxable income and, therefore, proposed to add the remaining 95% (after making an allowance for 5% of the amount added vide order dated 11.03.2016), which comes to Rs.2,11,44,280/-. The record discloses that the Assessing Officer recorded reasons

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

144B of the Act on 28/03/2022. The Assessing Officer made the (a) addition of INR.3,26,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act and (b) addition of INR.6,07,605/- under Section 69 of the Act. 3. In appeal preferred by the Assessee against the above Assessment Order, dated 28/03/2022, the Learned CIT(A) upheld the validity

ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SKA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act on 28/03/2022. The Assessing Officer made the (a) addition of INR.3,26,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act and (b) addition of INR.6,07,605/- under Section 69 of the Act. 3. In appeal preferred by the Assessee against the above Assessment Order, dated 28/03/2022, the Learned CIT(A) upheld the validity

VISHWA GLASS AND CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14

144B of the Act has been set aside by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act, have already been settled under the VSV Scheme, 2020 and have attained finality, therefore, these issues cannot be raised under section 263 of the Act. By referring to the orders passed by the concerned authority under section

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

bogus purchases and unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 18.04.2021 and assessed

NAVGRAHAA JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order 09.05.2023. 2. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book containing page 1 to 23 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the addition was made by the Ld. AO amount of Rs.1,72,69,594/- u/sec. 69C related to the bogus purchase

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

bogus penny stock transactions aggregating to Rs. 38,15,945/-, andsearch action in the case of Shri Naresh Jain allegedly revealed that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 20,04,080/-. 6. According to the PCIT, the reassessment order dated 28.02.2023 did not reflect any enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer into the tax implications

M/S STAR BRILLIAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

bogus purchases, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹1,47,66,834/- at the rate of 5% of purchases was reduced by the learned CIT (A) at the rate of 3% of such purchases. The assessee is aggrieved and in appeal before us. The assessee filed the original return of income on 1st 09. October

M/S STAR BRILLIAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT -19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

bogus purchases, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹1,47,66,834/- at the rate of 5% of purchases was reduced by the learned CIT (A) at the rate of 3% of such purchases. The assessee is aggrieved and in appeal before us. The assessee filed the original return of income on 1st 09. October