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 ()

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 the facts and they have further

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 ()

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 the facts and they have further

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 ()

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 the facts and they have further

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 ()

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 the facts and they have further

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)

purchases (i.e. 5% of M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,31,57,347/-) with similar observation. In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 36. Ground No.4 relates to levy of interest under section 234B &234C and ground No.5 relates to initiation of penalty under section 271(1) (c). The ground no. 4 is consequential and thus

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)

purchases (i.e. 5% of M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,31,57,347/-) with similar observation. In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 36. Ground No.4 relates to levy of interest under section 234B &234C and ground No.5 relates to initiation of penalty under section 271(1) (c). The ground no. 4 is consequential and thus

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

The appeals are partly allowed

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

SATISH R. RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

purchases made from these parties. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 6 are partly allowed. 6. Ground No. 7 of the appeal relates to charging of Interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D by the Assessing Officer. This ground is consequential in nature as far as the charging of interest under ITA. No.567/M/2016 534/M/2016 A.Y.2010-11 sections 2348/234C

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

234B", "Section 234C", "Section 234D"], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus and disallowable under Section 37(1), and whether

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

234B and 234C and 234D of the Act.” 4. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a trader and is engaged in dealing in ferrous and nonferrous metals in the name and style of M/s Orient Metal Industries as proprietor. The return was filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The return processed under section

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

234B and 234C and 234D of the Act.” 4. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a trader and is engaged in dealing in ferrous and nonferrous metals in the name and style of M/s Orient Metal Industries as proprietor. The return was filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The return processed under section

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

234B of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is premature in nature. Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ground nos. 2 & 3 relating to interest & penalty, being mandatory and consequential

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

234B of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is premature in nature. Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ground nos. 2 & 3 relating to interest & penalty, being mandatory and consequential

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

234B of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is premature in nature. Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ground nos. 2 & 3 relating to interest & penalty, being mandatory and consequential

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

234B of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is premature in nature. Shri Ilesh Amrutlal Gadhia AYs: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ground nos. 2 & 3 relating to interest & penalty, being mandatory and consequential