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

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

22. The Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of INR.2,31,791/- and INR.3,25,519/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 23. The Revenue has raised

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

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

22. The Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of INR.2,31,791/- and INR.3,25,519/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 23. The Revenue has raised

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

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

22. The Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of INR.2,31,791/- and INR.3,25,519/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 23. The Revenue has raised

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

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

22. The Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of INR.2,31,791/- and INR.3,25,519/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 23. The Revenue has raised

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

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

22. The Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of INR.2,31,791/- and INR.3,25,519/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 23. The Revenue has raised

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

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

22. The Revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of INR.2,31,791/- and INR.3,25,519/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively. Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 23. The Revenue has raised

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

e can be no delivery of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and purchases. against which no VAT has been paid. Such bogus purchases. against which

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

e can be no delivery of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and purchases. against which no VAT has been paid. Such bogus purchases. against which

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

section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 234C and 234D of the Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

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

22,59,068 16,87,727 65,10,522 65,10,522 30,24,057 Corporation Total 48,04,750 2,81,40,783 6,34,33,887 3,64,33,887 6,20,57,929 10,15,48,783 11,80,27,822 11,80,27,822 5,41,81,058 Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Skyway Infra Projects

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

22,63,094/- (Rs. 14, 14,434/ (Rs. 14, 14,434/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without considering

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

22,63,094/- (Rs. 14, 14,434/ (Rs. 14, 14,434/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without considering

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

22,63,094/- (Rs. 14, 14,434/ (Rs. 14, 14,434/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without considering

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

22,63,094/- (Rs. 14, 14,434/ (Rs. 14, 14,434/- u/s 69C of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without of the Act and Rs. 8,48,660 us 40A(3) of the Act) without considering

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding