ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

153B. 53. The question now is - what is the scope of assessment or reassessment of total income u/s 153A (1) (b) and the first proviso ? We are of the view that for answering this question, guidance will have to be sought from section 132(1). If any books of account or other documents relevant to the assessment had not been

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

bogus purchase addition to the buildings. purchase addition to the buildings. 6. Aggrieved with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) both the Aggrieved with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) both the Aggrieved with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A) both the Revenue and the assessee are before the Tribunal Revenue and the assessee

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchases, bogus job works & labour charges, subcontracts payments, unexplained cash credits of loans and interest on loans and hence the AO, in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the above said additions, could not have made any addition in unabated assessment years. In support of the above said proposition, we rely upon the decision rendered

THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) ., MUMBAI vs. RPS INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchases, bogus job works & labour charges, subcontracts payments, unexplained cash credits of loans and hence the AO, in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the above said M/s. RPS Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. additions, could not have made any addition in unabated assessment years. In support of the above said proposition, we rely upon the decision rendered

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRITI CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchases, bogus job works & labour charges, unexplained cash credits of loans and hence the AO, in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the above said additions, could not have made any addition in unabated assessment years. In support of the above M/s. Priti Construction, Mumbai. said proposition, we rely upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High

THE DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) ., MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHAH & PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S Shah & Parikh Central Circle 5(1), 2, Vallabh Niwas, Room No. 1928, 19Th Malviya Road, Floor, Air India Bldg, Vile Parle(E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400057 Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aajfs4684D Appellant .. Respondent

purchases, bogus job works & labour charges, unexplained cash credits of loans and interest on loans and hence the AO, in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the above said additions, could not have made any addition in unabated assessment years. In support of the above said proposition, we rely upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High

SAI MAHAVIR DEVLOPERS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases by Ld. CIT(A) as against the 100% added by the AO. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessment was framed in this case under section 143(3) read with section 153B

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SPECO INFRASTRUCTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

purchases, bogus job works & labour charges, subcontracts payments, unexplained cash credits of loans hence the AO, in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the above said additions, could not have made any addition in unabated assessment years. In support of the above said proposition, we rely upon the decision rendered M/s. Speco Infrastructure, Mumbai. by Hon’ble Bombay

DCIT- CC- 2(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA No.2647/Mum/2016 2007-08

bogus purchases in the sum of Rs.84,38,546/- as the said issue also gets subsumed in the net profit estimated at 1% of turnover. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 11 & 12 raised by the assessee in its cross objections are allowed. 5.3. The ground No.10 raised by the assessee in its cross objections is only supportive of the order

DCIT -CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA No.2647/Mum/2016 2007-08

bogus purchases in the sum of Rs.84,38,546/- as the said issue also gets subsumed in the net profit estimated at 1% of turnover. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 11 & 12 raised by the assessee in its cross objections are allowed. 5.3. The ground No.10 raised by the assessee in its cross objections is only supportive of the order

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Bogus Share Application money under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said addition made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted as the provisions of section 68 has been complied with. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances

CITRON INFRAPROJECT LTD.,,MUMBAI-400005 vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

SHRIVALLABH PITTIE INDUSTRIES LTD ,MUMBAI. vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

ACIT (CC)-8(2) , MUMBAI vs. HELIOS EXPORTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned

ACIT (CC)-8(2) , MUMBAI vs. HELIOS EXPORTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

purchases and sales transactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing officer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3% which is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various judicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6% iii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned