DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases 13,00,68,426 2. Addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act 2,06,16,167 Total

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases 13,00,68,426 2. Addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act 2,06,16,167 Total

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases 13,00,68,426 2. Addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act 2,06,16,167 Total

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases 13,00,68,426 2. Addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act 2,06,16,167 Total

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases 13,00,68,426 2. Addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act 2,06,16,167 Total

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

2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), 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

2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are tha Briefly stated, facts

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. judgements in favor of Appellant which is also against the law. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are tha Briefly stated, facts

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

purchases of Rs.76404685/-. Omkar Metal and Alloys Corp. 2 Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construe Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construe regard being had to facts of the case such addition should not regard being had to facts of the case

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

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @ 25% as against law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross

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

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @ 25% as against law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

2. Briefly stated facts of Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee the case are that the assessee firm is running a business of executing electrical contract business of executing electrical contracts mainly for business of executing electrical contract Government and semi semi-government authorities. For the year unde For the year under consideration, the assessee filed

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), 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 was also mentioned which was supplied to the assessee.Therefore, the argument which was supplied to the assessee.Therefore, the argument which was supplied to the assessee.Therefore, the argument that material was not supplied is not correct and the ground that material was not supplied is not correct and the ground that material was not supplied is not correct

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 was also mentioned which was supplied to the assessee.Therefore, the argument which was supplied to the assessee.Therefore, the argument which was supplied to the assessee.Therefore, the argument that material was not supplied is not correct and the ground that material was not supplied is not correct and the ground that material was not supplied is not correct

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Man Industries

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Man Industries