ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

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

2 3 4 5 27760622173V DHRUV SALES CORPORATION DHRUV SALES CORPORATION AHYPD6115E 2010-11 109,221 27040651087V RIDDHI ENTERPRISES RIDDHI ENTERPRISES ACHPT0444J 2010-11 89,450 27820645517V V M UDYOG V M UDYOG AGKPC6868L 2010-11 47,424 27520680408V SHANTINATH CORPORATION SHANTINATH CORPORATION ABFPW4096G 2010-11 47,918 27540616280V NAVDEEP TRADING CORPN. NAVDEEP TRADING CORPN. AAAPV4487A

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

2 3 4 5 27760622173V DHRUV SALES CORPORATION DHRUV SALES CORPORATION AHYPD6115E 2010-11 109,221 27040651087V RIDDHI ENTERPRISES RIDDHI ENTERPRISES ACHPT0444J 2010-11 89,450 27820645517V V M UDYOG V M UDYOG AGKPC6868L 2010-11 47,424 27520680408V SHANTINATH CORPORATION SHANTINATH CORPORATION ABFPW4096G 2010-11 47,918 27540616280V NAVDEEP TRADING CORPN. NAVDEEP TRADING CORPN. AAAPV4487A

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

purchases of Rs.76404685/-. Omkar Metal and Alloys Corp. 2 Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construe Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construe regard being had to facts of the case such addition should not regard being had to facts of the case

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

145 and made additions to the tune of 100% of alleged bogus purchases. Based upon entire factual matrix of the case and relying on judicial precedents , the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchase being profits embedded in these purchases. The Ld. DR on the other hand is insisting on confirming additions

M/S. PARAS PLASTIC PROCESSORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

2 & 3 assail the disallowance of the disallowance of Rs.8,74,835/- on account of on account of bogus purchases. It is seen that the assessee bogus purchases. It is seen that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and reselling of plastic reselling of plastic granules/powder. It is trite

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

145 of the paper book submitted during the appellate proceedings), following facts emerge- Name of the Concern Total Purchases Purchases during doubte d by FY 2011-12 the AO M/s Nayam Exim Pvt. ₹ 5,29,25,831/- ₹ 2.49 Cr Ltd. M/s M B Offshore ₹6,97,32,762/- ₹ 2.19 Cr Distributors Pvt Ltd M/s Riddhi Exim

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

2% of the alleged bogus purchases. and reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made there under. 4(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance

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

2% of the alleged bogus purchases. and reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made there under. 4(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

2. There is no evidence on record or document to verify the basis of the valuation of the closing stock shown by the assessee. The assessee is not able to prepare such details even with the help of books of account maintained, purchase bills & Sale Invoices. 3. Provisions of section 145(3) are clearly attracted in this case

V & V PHARMA INDUSTRIES,THANE vs. ACIT CIR. 3, THANE, THANE

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

section 145(3), the Assessing Officer acquires the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchase found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case is Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) where the entire amount of bogus purchases, from parties, was disallowed and was upheld. The relevant portion

PRANKIT EXPORTS, MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1441/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Prankit Exports, Ito 25(3)(2) 301 Shviling Apartments, Mumbai Juhu 10T H Road, V. Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafp2359K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

2. There is no evidence on record or document to verify the basis of the valuation of the closing stock shown by the assessee. The assessee is not able to prepare such details even with the help of books of account maintained, purchase bills & Sale Invoices. 3. Provisions of section 145(3) are clearly attracted in this case

ITO, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKA TECHINFRA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2 ITA No.4369/M/2024 & CO No.249/M/2024 M/s. SKA Techinfra Pvt. Ltd. 2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the instant appeal and CO are that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 21.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, assessed the total

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

bogus purchase by the appellant. Since the net profit of the appellant from the business has already been estimated, there is no case for making separate addition in respect of this entry. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.80,45,300 because the same is subsumed in the net profit estimation. This ground of appeal

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

bogus purchase by the appellant. Since the net profit of the appellant from the business has already been estimated, there is no case for making separate addition in respect of this entry. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.80,45,300 because the same is subsumed in the net profit estimation. This ground of appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PENINSULA LAND LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

section 69C of the Act. 19.15 In cases, where no reply to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was received from purchase parties, the AO have held that there was no movement of goods. Accordingly, it was held that such purchases are bogus in nature and the entire amount of purchases were disallowed by the AO. Thus