KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -23(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases and added back to the total income of the appellant. 7.5 At assessment stage, opportunity was given to assessee to produce the parties for verification, but the assessee failed to do so. 8 Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi The supplier was in fact the appellant’s witness and the Ld. AO was not required to force its attendance

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 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.4813/Mum/2017

section 101,102 and 106 of Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including purchases to satisfaction of the AO. Which was not discharged by the assessee as it failed to produce the parties from whom purchases were made. Since the primary facts are in knowledge of the assessee, it is its duty

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

bogus purchases were made. In response to it, the appellant submitted that all the payments were made by cheque. Necessary evidence regarding transportation and consumption of the material purchased were also produced but it was categorically admitted that they were not in a position to produce the parties for verification about the genuineness of the purchases

KAVIRAJ CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

bogus purchase is liable to be added to the income of assessee. Before going further, it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:- “They were entitled to took in to the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. 2.5.5 In yet another case of casting of onus

SAMKIT DIAMONDS EXPORTERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases except the information received from the investigation wing based on the search/survey action and a statement recorded from an unconnected party. AO himself accepted the purchases/ sales and expenses and question of rejection of books does not arise in such a situation and the AO stating in the assessment order that the books of accounts are rejected

MIRAH DEKOR PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 14, MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

154 ITR 148) (SC) • ITO Vs. Purshottam Das Bangur (90 Taxmann.com 541)(SC) • Phoolchand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO (69 Taxman 627)(SC) • Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Vs. ACIT (48 Taxmann.com 20(Bombay HC) • Sohar Siraj Lokhandwala Vs. ACIT (77 Taxman 302) (Bombay HC) • Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (15 Taxmann.com 275) (Bombay HC)” Apropos issue of bogus purchase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25(3), MUMBAI vs. SPAN ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NK the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BABULAL U MUNOT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

section 68 did not affect the addition made when transactions were found bogus." 2.4.21 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 316 ITR274{Guj), it was held as under: "12. Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

bogus purchases and added back to the total income of appellant. 5.2.1 During appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that all the Necessary evidence regarding transportation and consumption of the material purchased were also produce. 5.2.2 The A.O. has pointed out that necessary supporting evidences, support of its claim were not produced by the appellant. Even before the undersigned, during appellate

ITO 8 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHAIRAV STEEL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

bogus purchases and added back to the total income of the appellant. 6.2.2. The AO. has pointed out that necessary supporting evidences in support of its claim were not produced by the appellant. The supplier was in fact the appellant's witness and the Ld. A.O was not required to force its attendance. It was for the appellant to produce

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV D SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases. In the instant case, there was no search proceeding nor any blank signed cheque book, voucher have been found. So the present case is distinguishable from the above decision. Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah 9.2.1 In Surjeet Singh Chhabra (supra), the appellate authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the matter

VAIBHAV DEEPAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases. In the instant case, there was no search proceeding nor any blank signed cheque book, voucher have been found. So the present case is distinguishable from the above decision. Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah 9.2.1 In Surjeet Singh Chhabra (supra), the appellate authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the matter

VAIBHAV DEEPAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. AST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases. In the instant case, there was no search proceeding nor any blank signed cheque book, voucher have been found. So the present case is distinguishable from the above decision. Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah 9.2.1 In Surjeet Singh Chhabra (supra), the appellate authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the matter

DCIT CEN CIR 2(3), MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV D SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

bogus purchases. In the instant case, there was no search proceeding nor any blank signed cheque book, voucher have been found. So the present case is distinguishable from the above decision. Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah 9.2.1 In Surjeet Singh Chhabra (supra), the appellate authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the matter

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 68 of the 1961 Act and the appellate order 29 passed by learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained in view of our aforesaid detailed observations. Thus, under these circumstances we hereby confirm additions to the tune of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- as were made by the Assessing Officer and set aside the appellate order passed

RUPESH CHIMANLAL SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(3), KALYAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Appeal No.6179-6182/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs. Ito 3(3) Prop. Of Savla International 2Nd Floor, 16, Royal Tusk, B.S. Road Rani Mansion Dadar (W) Murbad `Road, Kalyan Mumbai – 400 028 (West), Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amrps4468B अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellants By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Shri Nagin Parikh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Rm Madhavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-I, Thane Dated 25.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With 147 Of The Act. As The Facts & Issues Are Identical All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2.1 Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) In Sustaining The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Act In All These Appeals. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits, The Reopening Of 2 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act. From the information obtained by the Assessing Officer from Sales Tax department, he was of the opinion that Assessee has also obtained bogus purchase bills from various parties listed in the Sales Tax department website. In the course of Assessment proceedings, from the details filed by 3 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

NIMISHA NILESH DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-26(2)(7), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggrawal. आअसं.7976/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2009-10) आअसं.7977/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) Nimisha Nilesh Doshi, 701, Tower No.2- Limona Runwal Anthurium, Lbs Marg, Opp Veena Nagar, Mulund West, Mumbai 400 080. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Agxpd6917E बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(2)(7) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The CIT(A) confirmed addition qua bogus purchases in toto. In respect of adhoc disallowance of office expenses, the CIT(A) restricted the same to 20%. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added. The Assessing Officer

NIMISHA NILESH DOSHI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (2)(7) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggrawal. आअसं.7976/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2009-10) आअसं.7977/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) Nimisha Nilesh Doshi, 701, Tower No.2- Limona Runwal Anthurium, Lbs Marg, Opp Veena Nagar, Mulund West, Mumbai 400 080. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Agxpd6917E बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(2)(7) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). The CIT(A) confirmed addition qua bogus purchases in toto. In respect of adhoc disallowance of office expenses, the CIT(A) restricted the same to 20%. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added. The Assessing Officer