ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases is M/s A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd. received accommodation entry from such party." received accommodation entry from such party." 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/ 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/ 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/-, however this appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S- SANJIVANI PARENTERAL LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

164,830,000 being 100% of purchases involved in circular trading without appreciating that all material facts and evidences with respect to purchase and sale of goods were placed to prove the circular transactions during the course of reassessment, and without appreciating that, there cannot be sale without corresponding purchases, and without considering that he was expected

DCIT CIRCLE- 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SANJIVAINI PARENTERAL LTD., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

164,830,000 being 100% of purchases involved in circular trading without appreciating that all material facts and evidences with respect to purchase and sale of goods were placed to prove the circular transactions during the course of reassessment, and without appreciating that, there cannot be sale without corresponding purchases, and without considering that he was expected

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJIVANI PARENTERAL LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

164,830,000 being 100% of purchases involved in circular trading without appreciating that all material facts and evidences with respect to purchase and sale of goods were placed to prove the circular transactions during the course of reassessment, and without appreciating that, there cannot be sale without corresponding purchases, and without considering that he was expected

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 bill / accommodation bill was obtained from the supplier. b. Though the purchases alleged as genuine are shown to have been made by making payment thereof by an account payee cheques, the cheques have been deposited in bank accounts ostensibly in the name of the apparent sellers. c. The assessee could not produce any delivery challan to prove that

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchases cannot be sustained. Thus, addition of INR 44,66,235/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted and Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed. Ground No. 2 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed 15. that the Appellant had taken unsecured loans from entities forming part of Bhanwarlal

ITO 29(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KETAN DHIRAJLAL GADA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negi

164 ITD 136 (Mumbai - Trib.), head note of which reads as under :- Section 69C, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Reassessment) - Information was received by Assessing Officer from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that there were some parties who were engaged in hawala transactions and were involved in issuing bogus bills for sale of material without

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

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

164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton\n& Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co-\noperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT\n(1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj).\n4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on\nthe assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to\nhave been made from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

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

164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton\n& Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co-\noperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT\n(1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj).\n4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on\nthe assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to\nhave been made from

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

section 145(3) and disallowed estimated 25% of the alleged bogus purchases as element of profit embedded in the purchases. This estimation was reduced to 12.32% by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 26.2.2018 on the basis of average of gross profit for 3 preceding and subsequent years. Tisya Jewels 6 It is submitted that this clearly shows that

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

section 145(3) and disallowed estimated 25% of the alleged bogus purchases as element of profit embedded in the purchases. This estimation was reduced to 12.32% by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 26.2.2018 on the basis of average of gross profit for 3 preceding and subsequent years. Tisya Jewels 6 It is submitted that this clearly shows that

ITO-22 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. NILESH CHANDRAKANT VORA, MUMBAI

164 5. The Assessee was asked to show cause why purchases made from the abovesaid parties should not be treated as bogus purchases. Vide replies filed by the Assessee vide letter, dated 18/08/2014, 3 26/08/2014 and 12/09/2014, the Assessee furnished: a) Party-wise details of Purchases b) Purchase Bills, Ledger Account of alleged bogus parities. c) Purchase Register & Sales Register

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SOURABH NAVALKISHOR GARG, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for both years under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

bogus and has concluded that the assessee is merely providing accommodation entries, he has estimated commission income on the sales turnover. In the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer at Ajmer, the entire purchase of 5.04 crore made from three parties have been disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee relying upon the information received from

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. SOURABH NAVALKISHOR GARG, MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for both years under consideration stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

bogus and has concluded that the assessee is merely providing accommodation entries, he has estimated commission income on the sales turnover. In the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer at Ajmer, the entire purchase of 5.04 crore made from three parties have been disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee relying upon the information received from

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 40A(3) of the Act. By adopting these measures, the purchases were inflated as raw material diamond were available in grey market at much lower price .The diamond merchants issues cheques in favour of benami concerns against purchase bills obtained by them against which they receive cash. The list of such benami companies was found during the course

SURESH L. SATYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 40A(3) of the Act. By adopting these measures, the purchases were inflated as raw material diamond were available in grey market at much lower ITA 3452/Mum/2016 6 price .The diamond merchants issues cheques in favour of benami concerns against purchase bills obtained by them against which they receive cash. The list of such benami companies was found during

ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. JOSTARS OROGOTECH P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

section 147 of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee took accommodation entries through person to regularize its purchases which is made out of books of account. The source of funds in such purchases 4 ITA No.1288 & CO 191/Mum/2017. M/s.Jostars Orogotech Private Limited. remained unexplained and therefore to be taxed as unexplained investment u/s 69.” 6. Thereafter

SITARAM CHEMICALS,AMBERNATH vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

164 ITR 102(Guj). This onus has not beer; discharged by the appellant. e) It is seen that the appellant has not maintained stock register, therefore, the appellant failed to give the quantitative details with regard to opening stock, purchases, consumption of raw materials, sales and closing stock, And also, quantitative details with regard to consumption of raw materials

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

164. 16. The alternate contention of assessee was that the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied to the appellant since the share of profit received by the appellant from such integrated joint venture AOP is chargeable to tax in terms of provisions of section 167B r.w.s. 86 of the Act. A further without prejudice submission is that the company