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

purchase bills. The Assessing Officer accordingly rejected the books result of the assessee invoking section books result of the assessee invoking section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), 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

section 145 of the Act. circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/ purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/-. But the Ld. CIT(A) . But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the addition to the extent

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

section 145 of the Act. circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/ purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/-. But the Ld. CIT(A) . But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the addition to the extent

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

145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of account by the Assessing books of account by the Assessing - Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

purchases by the assessee. But in the instant case before us, the AO after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) has not applied GP Ratio to estimate income rather Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) were invoked to estimate income whose validity is to be tested by us on the threshold of statutory provisions , their interpretation by Courts and factual

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

purchases by the assessee. But in the instant case before us, the AO after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) has not applied GP Ratio to estimate income rather Section 40A(3)/40A(3A) were invoked to estimate income whose validity is to be tested by us on the threshold of statutory provisions , their interpretation by Courts and factual

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 of the 1961 Act. The AO made additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 51,56,867/- by invoking provisions of Section 69C of the 1961 Act being 100% of the alleged bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the AO u/s 143(3

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

3) dated 5.11.2014]. However, if the bogus purchases are owever, if the bogus purchases are unproved and/or are declared unproved and/or are declared consumed by assessee itself in its trading, consumed by assessee itself in its trading, manufacturing or non manufacturing or non-trading activities without any evidence, the entire addition can be made as it only goes to inflate

MANISH KANTILAL KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section 145(3) of the Act, he rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected

MANISH KANTILAL KAPADIA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section 145(3) of the Act, he rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected

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

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

145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, he re-worked the total turnover of the assessee by eliminating 75% of bogus sales claimed, by retaining 25% of bogus sales to 34 Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd arrive at net sales figure for all 5 assessment years at Rs.610,29,18,093. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) has estimated net profit

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

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

145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. However, he re-worked the total turnover of the assessee by eliminating 75% of bogus sales claimed, by retaining 25% of bogus sales to 34 Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd arrive at net sales figure for all 5 assessment years at Rs.610,29,18,093. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) has estimated net profit

SAMKIT DIAMONDS EXPORTERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 145(3) of the IT Act. Hence, the endeavour is to impute the additional G.P., which the assessee must have earned by purchasing the diamonds in the grey 5 I.T.A. No. 4133/Mum/2016 I.T.A. No. 4383/Mum/2016 market, than from the regular dealer. This would be the margin which the petty trader in the grey market offers you over the .established

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. MODERN ROAD MAKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

3.a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,62,206/ - made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of bogus purchases in respect of purchases from M/s. Asian Steel who in turn purchased these goods from

MODERN ROAD MAKERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

3.a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,62,206/ - made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of bogus purchases in respect of purchases from M/s. Asian Steel who in turn purchased these goods from

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)

bogus purchases was disallowed and the order were confirmed by High Courts. It has been held that after invocation of provisons of section 145(3

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) ..

bogus purchases by relying on several decisions of the Courts under similar circumstances which found mentioned in the appellate order of learned CIT(A), as under:- “ 6. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are in relation with addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69 C after rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act. For the sake of convenience

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHORELINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Prop. M/S Marine Plaza, Dur-Ul- R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Habib, 29, Marine Drive, Bldg., Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B

section 147 of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment orders before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 17% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeals and the assessee has filed the cross objection