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 ()

234A/ 234B/ 234C of the Act. 234B/ 234C of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating

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 ()

234A/ 234B/ 234C of the Act. 234B/ 234C of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating

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 ()

234A/ 234B/ 234C of the Act. 234B/ 234C of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating

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 ()

234A/ 234B/ 234C of the Act. 234B/ 234C of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the order without appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating the facts and they have further erred in appreciating

MIRAH DEKOR PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 14, MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified and unwarranted. 39. Facts and order of the authorities below are similar to the one dealt with by us in A.Y. 2009-10. Our aforesaid order applies mutatis mutandis here also. Hence, disallowance of bogus purchases and addition under section

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Bogus bills of purchase of diamonds (rough) are also taken by the diamond processing companies or traders who tend to inflate purchases and to defraud revenue by showing low profit. The processing houses / traders issue cheques to benami concerns against the bogus purchase bill taken. Since there is no genuine transaction

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Bogus bills of purchase of diamonds (rough) are also taken by the diamond processing companies or traders who tend to inflate purchases and to defraud revenue by showing low profit. The processing houses / traders issue cheques to benami concerns against the bogus purchase bill taken. Since there is no genuine transaction

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Bogus bills of purchase of diamonds (rough) are also taken by the diamond processing companies or traders who tend to inflate purchases and to defraud revenue by showing low profit. The processing houses / traders issue cheques to benami concerns against the bogus purchase bill taken. Since there is no genuine transaction

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared by the appellant on such purchases. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient to justify such rate of gross profit of 12.50% 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming validity of initiating proceeding under

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

234A", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 234D"], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus and disallowable under Section

M/S. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1823, 1819 & 1821/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

section 234A is not attracted. 5. Assessee has not pressed Ground no. 4.1 & 4.2, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 6. The main issue involved in the cross appeals is addition on account of bogus purchases

KALPESH RAMESHBHAI VYAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

purchases made by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 88177627-from the parties mentioned in the assessment order is non-genuine and thereby erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant under section 145(3) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner

RAMESHKUMAR SANGHVI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , MATRU MANDIR,

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

purchases made by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 88177627-from the parties mentioned in the assessment order is non-genuine and thereby erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant under section 145(3) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "10(34)", "37(1)", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "147", "148", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins treated as bogus

OMKAR METAL & ALLOYS CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

bogus purchases with the item sold, which is contrary to the facts of the case on record. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to consider statement of purchases and corresponding sales filed in paper book submitted before him at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. OMKAR METAL & ALLOYS CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

bogus purchases with the item sold, which is contrary to the facts of the case on record. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to consider statement of purchases and corresponding sales filed in paper book submitted before him at the time of hearing of appeal. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(1)", "143(3)", "144B", "37(1)", "10(34)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus

SHRI ASHOK VAKHARIA(HUF),2009-10 vs. ITO WARD-24(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 6. Because in any view, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction, void ab-initio as the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the ITO who had passed the order did not have the authority

ITO 31 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK S. VAKHARIA HUF, MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 6. Because in any view, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction, void ab-initio as the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that the ITO who had passed the order did not have the authority