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

201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to 02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: investigate the belief of the AO has held as under:- "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section "All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section "All that

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

201 ITR 674 has held that the assessing officer's power under section are not arbitrary and he must exercise his discretion and judgment judicially. A clear finding is necessary before invoking the provision sec.145(3) of the I T Act. The Assessing officer has not been able to point out any defect or mistake or error in the books

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

ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KHUSALDAS MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AABPM7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Jadhav Assessee by : Shri K.P. Kapadia सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 24-05-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2016 आदेश

PRANKIT EXPORTS, MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1441/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Prankit Exports, Ito 25(3)(2) 301 Shviling Apartments, Mumbai Juhu 10T H Road, V. Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafp2359K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases by relying on several decisions of the Courts under similar circumstances which found mentioned in the appellate order of learned CIT(A), as under:- “ 6. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are in relation with addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69 C after rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act. For the sake of convenience

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 CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

201/– to all the 4 parties. M/s Asian Star Company Ltd; A.Y.2012-13 011. Accordingly the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of the act was passed on 30/12/2019 making the addition of ₹ 116,624,231 with respect to the purchase transaction and disallowance of commission expenditure of ₹ 8,315,211, determining the total income

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

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)

bogus long-term capital gains and share capital etc. According to the Revenue, ACIAL was being managed and controlled by Shri Shah and thus in light of his statement given in the course of his search, the & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd professional fees paid to ACIAL was treated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAHENDRA B GANDHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negi

201 PAN/GIR No.ABHPG6116B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Mahendra B. Gandhi Revenue by R. Bhoopathi Date of Hearing 01/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement 01 /10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): These three appeals filed by the revenue are directed against common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Nasik, dated 29/062018 and they

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANJULA S. SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

201/- for taxation on the basis of bogus bills for A.Y.2009-10. It was also noticed, during the course of survey, that signed blank cheques belonging to these three parties were found and the partner of the firm submitted in statement recorded on oath that the signed blank cheque books were taken from these three parties to safeguard its interest since

SHRI. ILESH AMRUTLAL GADHIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

201, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Bhavan Nariman Point 368/370, Narsi Nath Street Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Masjid Bunder (West), Mumbai-400 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJHPG-8596-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Mayur Kishnadwala-Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Hemant Kumar-Ld. CIT-DR Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 सुनवाई क" तार

DCIT- C.CIRCLE,4(2), MUMBAI vs. ILESH AMRUTLAL GADHIA, MUMBAI

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

201, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Bhavan Nariman Point 368/370, Narsi Nath Street Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Masjid Bunder (West), Mumbai-400 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJHPG-8596-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Mayur Kishnadwala-Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Hemant Kumar-Ld. CIT-DR Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 सुनवाई क" तार

DCIT- C.CIRCLE,4(2), MUMBAI vs. ILESH AMRUTLAL GADHIA, MUMBAI

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

201, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Bhavan Nariman Point 368/370, Narsi Nath Street Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Masjid Bunder (West), Mumbai-400 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJHPG-8596-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Mayur Kishnadwala-Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Hemant Kumar-Ld. CIT-DR Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 सुनवाई क" तार

ILESH AMRUTLAL GADHIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

201, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Bhavan Nariman Point 368/370, Narsi Nath Street Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Masjid Bunder (West), Mumbai-400 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJHPG-8596-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Mayur Kishnadwala-Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Hemant Kumar-Ld. CIT-DR Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 सुनवाई क" तार

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. CHIRAG CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

201/- for taxation on the basis of bogus bills for A.Y.2009-10. It was also noticed, during the course of survey, that signed blank cheques belonging to these three parties were found and the partner of the firm submitted in statement recorded on oath that the signed blank cheque books were taken from these three parties to safeguard its interest since