JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\"\n3. The Assessee has raised the following additional grounds of\nappeal vide letter dated 26.03.2025 filed with registry

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\"\n3. The Assessee has raised the following additional grounds of\nappeal vide letter dated 26.03.2025 filed with registry

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\"\n3. The Assessee has raised the following additional grounds of\nappeal vide letter dated 26.03.2025 filed with registry

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\"\n\n3. The Assessee has raised the following additional grounds of\nappeal vide letter dated 26.03.2025 filed with registry

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of\nappeal before or at the time of hearing.\"\n\n3. The Assessee has raised the following additional grounds of\nappeal vide letter dated 26.03.2025 filed with registry

SHAIRUL IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1)), MUMBAI

bogus purchases constitute a revenue item and cannot be treated as an asset. The provisions of section 149(1)(b) were not taken into cognizance by the AO while invoking section 148. The reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond three years without establishing that the income escaped assessment was in the form of an asset.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

MARK FOODS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus purchase merely on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

section 145(3) to reject\n60 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\nbooks of account, the Assessing Officer was not justified in\nmaking additions on an estimate basis.\n(Page 17 to 18 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 5 on\npage 18)\nThe Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v.Forum\nSales (P.) Ltd.[2024] 160 taxmann.com

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 1,16,22,479/- (being 36 percentage of credit entries

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

151A of the Act read with notification issued on 29.03.2022 regarding e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 6. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 1,16,22,479/- (being 36 percentage of credit entries

RAJESH GOKULCHAND AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-41(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Gokulchand Agrawal Ito, Ward-41(3)(3), G.M. Enterprises, 24,Old Hanuman Vs Kautilyabhavan, Bandrakurla Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400002. Mumbai-400051. [Pan No. Aawpa9648Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

151A of the Act; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s.69C of entire (100%) purchase of traded goods (fabrics) made from alleged non-genuine supplier M/s. RajshreeVanijyaUdyog of Rs.45,39,400/-; Rajesh Gokulchand Agrawal 4.0 The Ld. CIT(A), before confirming the addition of alleged non-genuine

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

151A of the Act and hence the\ndecision of the jurisdictional High Court i.e. in the case of\nGanesh Jagtap may be followed.”\n43 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\n27. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused\nthe material placed on record, considered the rival contentions\nand also considered the submission filed by the Assessee

IMPRESSIVE TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

bogus accommodation entry activities to facilitate fake sales and purchases.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the consequential assessment orders were barred by limitation, as they were issued beyond the \"surviving period\" as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notices and subsequent