ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, for all the

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure

DIAGOLD DESIGNS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee, are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

154 (Guj.) PCIT v. Surya Impex “It is alleged that the assessee firm received accommodation entries from Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his son Shri Rajesh Bhanwarlal Jain provided accommodation entries to various parties in the form unsecured loan and bogus purchases. When accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases to the tune

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

LLOYDS ENTERPRISES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHREE GLOBAL TRADEFIN LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

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

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also contended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied upon documents produced for the first time at the appellate stage without calling for a remand report or affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in his submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure. 17. On the question

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

section 69C and added the entire amount of added the entire amount of ₹2,24,75,072/- to the assessee’s to the assessee’s income. 2.5 The Assessing Officer noted that during the search and survey The Assessing Officer noted that during the search and survey The Assessing Officer noted that during the search and survey action conducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ACZET PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

section\n133(6) of the Act to verify the genuineness of the purchases. However,\nnotices were served and no suppliers were found. Therefore, he\nsubmitted that all these parties have only provided accommodation\nentries. He submitted that assessee has supplied counting machines to\nthe SBI and assessee has claimed to have purchased software. He\nsubmitted that what sort of software

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS METALS AND ENERGY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, for all the

purchases and sales were merely on paper. He also\ncontended that the learned CIT(A) had admitted and relied\nupon documents produced for the first time at the appellate\nstage without calling for a remand report or affording the\nAssessing Officer an opportunity to examine them, which, in\nhis submission, was contrary to settled appellate procedure