DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

Appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

197/- whereas the department is in appeal in respect of relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.3,72,363/- by restricting disallowance at 12.50% in respect of disallowance made at 100% by AO in respect of party at sr. no.1 in the above table i.e. Kavita Enterprises. 15. In respect of the disallowance out of purchases as alleged bogus

CHIRAG J. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 19 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 246 of the I.T.Act, 1961. He, further noted that it is not a case that bogus bills have been obtained from suspicious dealers and corresponded materials have been purchased from the grey market. The assessee himself has admitted that such bogus bills have not only been obtained, but also various expenditure has been booked in order to reduce

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

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

197/- whereas the department is in\nappeal in respect of relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.3,72,363/- by\nrestricting disallowance at 12.50% in respect of disallowance made at\n100% by AO in respect of party sr. no.1 in the above table i.e.\nKavita Enterprises.\n\n15. In respect of the disallowance out of purchases as alleged bogus

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

197/- whereas the department is in\nappeal in respect of relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.3,72,363/- by\nrestricting disallowance at 12.50% in respect of disallowance made at\n100% by AO in respect of party at sr. no.1 in the above table i.e.\nKavita Enterprises.\n15. In respect of the disallowance out of purchases as alleged bogus

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

197/- whereas the department is in\nappeal in respect of relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.3,72,363/- by\nrestricting disallowance at 12.50% in respect of disallowance made at\n100% by AO in respect of party at sr. no.1 in the above table i.e.\nKavita Enterprises.\n15. In respect of the disallowance out of purchases as alleged bogus

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

197/- by restricting 100%\naddition of the AO to 12.5%, ignoring the facts and\ncircumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the ration laid down by the\nHon'ble apex court in the case of N.K Protein

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. MAHENDRA MISRIMALJI SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit Vs. Mahendra Misrimalji 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Shah, Room No. 28, 2Nd Chamber, Lalbaug, Floor, Lehari Building Mumbai- 400012 Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Bjdps7198J Appellant .. Respondent

197 (India) 2. Samco Steel & 17,85,368 Alloys Total 27,38,565 Consequently, the case of the assessee was re-opened after recording the reason and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 07.03.2016 and served upon the assessee by affixture. In response to the notice u/s 148 the assessee did not file its return of income. Thereafter, notice

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 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

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

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

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 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