DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine expense as alleged non-genuine expenses, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. AY 2016-17 Revenue’s Ground of Appeal 1685/Mum/2025 Ground Nature of Ground Findings No. 1. The said ground of 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances revenue is dismissed of the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine expense as alleged non-genuine expenses, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. AY 2016-17 Revenue’s Ground of Appeal 1685/Mum/2025 Ground Nature of Ground Findings No. 1. The said ground of 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances revenue is dismissed of the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine expense as alleged non-genuine expenses, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. AY 2016-17 Revenue’s Ground of Appeal 1685/Mum/2025 Ground Nature of Ground Findings No. 1. The said ground of 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances revenue is dismissed of the case

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine expense as alleged non-genuine expenses, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. AY 2016-17 Revenue’s Ground of Appeal 1685/Mum/2025 Ground Nature of Ground Findings No. 1. The said ground of 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances revenue is dismissed of the case

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine expense as alleged non-genuine expenses, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. AY 2016-17 Revenue’s Ground of Appeal 1685/Mum/2025 Ground Nature of Ground Findings No. 1. The said ground of 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances revenue is dismissed of the case

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine expense as alleged non-genuine expenses, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. AY 2016-17 Revenue’s Ground of Appeal 1685/Mum/2025 Ground Nature of Ground Findings No. 1. The said ground of 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances revenue is dismissed of the case

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

bogus LTCG entries | shares\navailed\n1.\nKGN Enterprises Ltd.\n44200\n1,87,66,525\n\n4.\nOn the basis of the aforesaid information available with the\nundersigned, I have reason to believe that income chargeable\nto tax, as indicated above, to the tune of Rs.1,87,66,525/- or\nproceedings for reassessment, has escaped assessment with\nthe meaning of section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the assessee failed failed failed to to to prove prove prove the the the genuineness genuineness genuineness of of of purchases, purchases, purchases, andany andany andany expenditure in respect of which payments by account payee expenditure in respect of which payments by account payee expenditure in respect of which payments by account payee cheques

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the Assessee at INR.58,16,60,720/- after making the following additions/disallowances: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1. Alleged bogus purchases

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

153A is found\nto be bad in law, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyears 2012–13 to 2014–15 are allowed, and the corresponding\nappeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.\n22. Now coming to the remaining assessment years, we shall\nnow take AY 2015-16 to 2021-22. In these years the following\nthree issue arises

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

153A is found\nto be bad in law, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment\nyears 2012–13 to 2014–15 are allowed, and the corresponding\nappeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.\n22. Now coming to the remaining assessment years, we shall\nnow take AY 2015-16 to 2021-22. In these years the following\nthree issue arises