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. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)was justified in restricting the addition on account of law, the Ld.CIT(A)was justified

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Shri Nitin P. Chheda 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Shri Nitin P. Chheda 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Mrs. Prabhaben K. Gala 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Mrs. Prabhaben K. Gala 2. In so far as the validity of assessment is concerned, briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed returns of income for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently by way of issue of notice dated

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. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are tha Briefly stated, facts

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. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are tha Briefly stated, facts

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

KHANGARAM K DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to be issued and served subsequent be issued and served subsequent to filing of return of income, the ing of return of income, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Mumbai

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to be issued and served subsequent be issued and served subsequent to filing of return of income, the ing of return of income, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Mumbai

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to be issued and served subsequent be issued and served subsequent to filing of return of income, the ing of return of income, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Mumbai

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred in judicial

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

148 and hence such assessment made was bad in law and liable to be quashed. was bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and On the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial proposition, Hon. CIT Appeals erred in judicial

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

bogus purchases are as under:- Name of the party VAT No. SI. Transaction amount NO. (In Rs.) 1 27440561142V Alok Trading Co.. 1,17,524 2. 27960621869V 8,09,923 Anlket Industries 3. 27930713987V 8,75,477 Mico Steels 4. 27340354975V 10,77,652 R.K. Matel 5. 27940626827V 12,83,842 Ujwal Enterprises 6. 27190660365V 2,23,142 Bohra

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

section 151(2) of the I.T. Act, no notice u/s. of the I.T. Act, no notice u/s. 148 issued by the assessing officer below the 148 issued by the assessing officer below the rank of the J.C. after the k of the J.C. after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant A.Y. expiry of 4 years from

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @ 25% as against law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @ 25% as against law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has recorded the reasons on the recorded the reasons on the basis ol borrowed satisfaction. basis ol borrowed satisfaction. The reasons recorded on the basis of a report sent by the The reasons recorded on the basis of a report sent by the The reasons recorded on the basis