ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

195, wherein 100% of addition was confirmed by the Court?" confirmed by the Court?" 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee an Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee an Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee an individual, is a dealer i , is a dealer in industrial solvent

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

195 (SC) is squarely applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce the quantum of disallowance of bogus purchases to 25% in place of the quantum of disallowance of bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

195 (SC) is squarely applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce mutandis to the instant case. Accordingly, the AO is directed to reduce the quantum of disallowance of bogus purchases to 25% in place of the quantum of disallowance of bogus

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

section 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including purchases to the satisfaction

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. S P INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No.6580/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration to the tune of Rs. 9,46,407/- and 3,06,473/-, form two paper companies in the name of AADI and Kalash respectively, that was managed by Rajendra Jain and group. 2.1 Accordingly notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently notice

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

bogus purchase of Rs.1,07,32,125/ for F.Y.2008 Rs.1,07,32,125/ for F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009- -10, it could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/ could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/ could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/- assessable

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

bogus purchase of Rs.1,07,32,125/ for F.Y.2008 Rs.1,07,32,125/ for F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009- -10, it could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/ could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/ could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/- assessable

KHANGARAM K DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

bogus purchase of Rs.1,07,32,125/ for F.Y.2008 Rs.1,07,32,125/ for F.Y.2008-09 relevant to A.Y.2009- -10, it could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/ could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/ could be easily deduced that income of Rs. 1,07,32,125/- assessable

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

195 (SC) submitted that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court on the issue of bogus purchases in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra) wherein it has been held that the addition on the basis of undisclosed income could not be restricted to certain percentage when entire transaction

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

195 (SC) submitted that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court on the issue of bogus purchases in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra) wherein it has been held that the addition on the basis of undisclosed income could not be restricted to certain percentage when entire transaction

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. REFRIGERATED DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

ASST CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S POONAM SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

195 (SC) "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company." CIT vs. Steller Investment

ASST CIT CC 1 (3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S POONAM SHANTI DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

195 (SC) "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company." CIT vs. Steller Investment

ASST CIT CC 1 (3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S POONAM MEGA DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

195 (SC) "If the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee company." CIT vs. Steller Investment