ARORA BROTHERS FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. WARD 12(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as being without merit

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI 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

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

144B", "Section 133A", "Section 37(1)", "Section 10(34)", "Section 234A", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 234D"], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus

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

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

MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

purchases as bogus was the Director's statement, which, when read in entirety, indicated goods sold in transit, a recognized practice. Crucially, no independent enquiry was conducted by the AO, and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee was not disproved. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the precedent of Kanak Impex, where stronger incriminating evidence was present. The Tribunal

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "10(34)", "37(1)", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "147", "148", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins treated as bogus

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "37(1)", "10(34)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

144B of the Act\nby the National Faceless Assessment Centre [hereinafter referred\nto as “Assessing Officer or AO"].\n2.2. The reopening for all the years was based on information\nreceived from the Investigation Wing, emanating from a survey\n3\nITA No. 8361 to 8364/Mum/2025\nJamnadas Virji Shares & Stock Brokers Private Ltd\nconducted under section 133A in the case

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

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

bogus accommodation entries.\nAssessing Officer formed a belief that for the Assessment Year\n2017-2018 income to the extent of INR.3,32,57,605/- had escaped\nassessments and therefore, reassessment proceedings were\ninitiated in the case of the Assessee. The aforesaid proceedings\nculminated to passing of the Assessment Order under Section 147 of\nthe Act read with Section 144B

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

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/-.\n6. 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

ACCOST MEDIA LLP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 27(1), NAVI MUMBAI

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

bogus and restricted the addition to 12.5% of the impugned purchases (Rs. 2,16,42,907/-), deleting the rest. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the AO's thorough inquiry, found that the identity of the parties involved was not conclusively established and the expenses were supported only by documentary evidence.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "133(6)", "143(3)", "144B

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