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

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

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

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

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

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

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69C are not applicable despite clear findings that the purchases were non clear findings that the purchases were non-genuine and made through shell genuine and made through shell entities merely for providing accommodation entries entities merely for providing accommodation entries 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Whether

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PVT LTD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

145(3) are clearly attracted in this case. 4. The genuineness of purchases to the extent of Rs. 42 lakhs (approx.) is not proved without any doubt. 5. The GP rate declared by the assessee at 13.49 per cent during the assessment year is not a match to the result declared by the itself in the previous assessment years

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

145(3) are clearly attracted in this case. 4. The genuineness of purchases to the extent of Rs. 42 lakhs (approx.) is not proved without any doubt. 5. The GP rate declared by the assessee at 13.49 per cent during the assessment year is not a match to the result declared by the itself in the previous assessment years

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

Section 145(3) of the Act. It has been held by Assessing Officer in Para No. 21 of the assessment order that- "From the facts stated above and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, there is little doubt that the purchases made from the various hawala parties by the assessee were done with the purpose and intention

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

Section 145(3) of the Act. It has been held by Assessing Officer in Para No. 21 of the assessment order that- "From the facts stated above and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, there is little doubt that the purchases made from the various hawala parties by the assessee were done with the purpose and intention

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

KALPESH RAMESHBHAI VYAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

purchases made by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 88177627-from the parties mentioned in the assessment order is non-genuine and thereby erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant under section 145(3) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner

RAMESHKUMAR SANGHVI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MATRU MANDIR,

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

purchases made by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 88177627-from the parties mentioned in the assessment order is non-genuine and thereby erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant under section 145(3) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner

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

145(3) of the Act. The Assessee with regard to the non-providing the details qua actual movement/supply of goods has claimed that it has acted as an intermediary between the supplier and the sellers, as it is the modus operandi of the Assessee to purchase the fabrics as and when the order is received from the buyer and consequently

INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHEMON JEWELS, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

3% of total value of bogus purchase transactions, although there was no dispute that the bogus purchases were made and so act of infraction of law was committed by the assessee on provision of section 74(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 and such purchases are not allowable as per express provisions

ITO, MUMBAI vs. SHEMON JEWELS, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

3% of total value of bogus purchase transactions, although there was no dispute that the bogus purchases were made and so act of infraction of law was committed by the assessee on provision of section 74(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 and such purchases are not allowable as per express provisions

PINKAL DILIP BHANSALI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2011-12

purchases amounting to ₹2,24,75,072/ 2,24,75,072/- were treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. The books of account were rejected under section 145(3). The The books of account were rejected under section 145(3