DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

2. Reconciliation of Stock Statement showing inward & outward movement of materials 3. Bank Statements depicting transactions made by way of Account Payee cheques & through banking channel only 4. Ledger Accounts of parties 5.Itemwise Quantitative details of purchases and sales. 6. However, AO made the addition of the purchases on the ground that VAT authorities have treated the sales

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

x 551 (FY 2007-08) = 10,114 497 (FY 2005-06) Total indexed cost of acquisition 3,26,04,450 Net long term capital gains Rs.1,48,35,150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

x 551 (FY 2007-08) = 10,114 497 (FY 2005-06) Total indexed cost of acquisition 3,26,04,450 Net long term capital gains Rs.1,48,35,150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

x 551 (FY 2007-08) = 10,114 497 (FY 2005-06) Total indexed cost of acquisition 3,26,04,450 Net long term capital gains Rs.1,48,35,150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

x 551 (FY 2007-08) = 10,114 497 (FY 2005-06) Total indexed cost of acquisition 3,26,04,450 Net long term capital gains Rs.1,48,35,150 11. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee company has acquired the shares of BSE limited on 07-10-2005 after corporatization and demutualization of Bombay

MODERN ROAD MAKERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

2% of the commission charges paid to Karma Industries Ltd. on purchases of Rs 33,37,54,424/- and worked out disallowance of Rs.66,75,088/-. 18. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) required the bifurcation of the purchases utilized in different project. On the basis of bifurcation of cost of the purchased utilized in various project

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. MODERN ROAD MAKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

2% of the commission charges paid to Karma Industries Ltd. on purchases of Rs 33,37,54,424/- and worked out disallowance of Rs.66,75,088/-. 18. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) required the bifurcation of the purchases utilized in different project. On the basis of bifurcation of cost of the purchased utilized in various project

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

24 Navnidhi Steel & Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that other points are available to be raised. Since no other point was urged before the High Court, we find no reason to examine if any other point was available. The appeal is allowed without any orders as to costs.” Thus, we hold that reopening

PUSHPAK AUXICHEM P. LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

purchase and sale bills are cancelled bills. No actual purchase of goods or sale of goods was made by the assessee. The delivery of the goods was also not effected. This fact was verifiable from the inward register lying seized with the Department in which such transactions are not recorded. The assessee-company has also not received any payment from

ITO WD 1(5), KALYAN vs. GOPAL RAMSHISH TRIPATHI, BHIWANDI

In the result, the appeal for all three years, are PARTLY

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

section 145(3), the Assessing Officer acquires the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case is Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CI'T 294 ITR 316 (All) where the entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and was upheld. The relevant portion

DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PCI ANALYTICS P.TLD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

24,650/- was made. The entire sum of Rs.31,26,139/- was settled by January, 2010. The purchase made during the year on 06.07.2009 was paid on 20.12.2009. Therefore, the payment was found to have been made beyond six months. Copies of the invoice, delivery challan along with voucher for transport, filed are available in pages

ASST CIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RADIANT GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-25(3), M/S Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6Th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aajfr3662E Co No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4146/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Radiant Gems, Acit-25(3), 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Room No.601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aajfr3662E

section 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases to be held as profit." 8. "The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 2. The brief, facts of the case are that the assessee partnership firm is engaged in the business of trading in diamond

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

x 5%]. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Appellant is before us. 21.2. Since the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 were identical to the grounds raised in the appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13, both the sides adopted the submissions made in relation to appeal

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel & Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh Prakash

DCIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बनाम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

24 Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd, had also admitted to the modus operandi of providing inflated bills to its customers. The AO accordingly observed that M/s Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd was providing inflated purchases to M/s Maker Laboratories Ltd and the amount of over-invoicing was routed back in guise of ‘commission’. 8.4 Referring to the search findings

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

24 previous year from five companies , namely (a) Ambition Plaza Private Ltd., Rs. 10 lac, (b) Big Scale Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 40 Lac, (c) Seva Bhavan Pvt. Ltd, Rs. 20 Lac, (d) Shubh Labh Vinimay Private Ltd.(Shubh Labh Advertising Private Limited), Rs. 67 Lac and (e) Snow Pack Tieup Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 40 Lac, aggregating

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

24 of the act and upheld the action of the learned assessing officer in taxing the income of the above properties on all other issues. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 058. Ground number 3 is with respect to the addition on account of sale proceeds of ₹ 109,174,422/– for assessment year