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

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

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

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

A.P.I. CIVILCON PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC- 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are\nallowed for statistical purposes

bogus purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.", "result": "Allowed for statistical purposes", "sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "41(1)", "234A", "234B

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

sections": [ "37(1)", "147", "148", "10(34)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of expenses for gold coin purchases as bogus

HIREN CHINUBHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2772/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Hiren Chinubhai Shah बिधम/ Ito, Ward-22(1)(5) A-301, Savoy Residency Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Santacruz (West) S.O. Bandra (East), Mumbai- Mumbai, Mumbai-400054. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agups8207K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.20,84,190/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Being 100% Of The Total Purchases Made From Two (2) Parties.

234B and 234C are consequential. So dismissed. 5. Before us, only ground no. 2 was argued, which is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) sustaining disallowance of Rs.20,84,190/- u/s 69C of the Act being 100% disallowance of total purchases from two (2) parties namely (i) M/s. Kriya Impex Pvt. Ltd. and (ii) M/s. Sun Diam

CHALLENGER COMPUTERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 147 of the Act in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 10. From the record, it is evident that the assessee has alleged to have made bogus purchases from the following parties in the assessment year 2009–10. Sr. Name of Parties Bill Amount No. 1. Rajshree Enterprises Rs.3

CHALLENGER COMPUTERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 147 of the Act in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 10. From the record, it is evident that the assessee has alleged to have made bogus purchases from the following parties in the assessment year 2009–10. Sr. Name of Parties Bill Amount No. 1. Rajshree Enterprises Rs.3

D KETAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.978/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2010-11) D.Ketan & Co., 310,Sai Leela, Commercial Complex, Opp Moksh Plaza, S.V.Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 091. Pan: Aadfd-2513-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 32(1), Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri D.C.Saboo ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2023

bogus purchases i.e. Rs. 2,01,91,960/-. Thus, the impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned herein above. The ground No.1 to 3 of the appeal are partly allowed. 7. No submissions were made in respect of ground No.4 and 5, hence, the same are dismissed. 8. In ground No.6 of appeal, the assessee has assailed charging

PERRY IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 147/148 of the I.T. Act. 1961. From the assessment order, it was observed that the assessee had acknowledged the notice issued by the AO and duly complied with it. 5.1 The ld.AR has also not vehemently argued in support of the ground before us. We find no infirmity in the action of the AO in initiation of proceedings

ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI vs. PERRY IMPEX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 147/148 of the I.T. Act. 1961. From the assessment order, it was observed that the assessee had acknowledged the notice issued by the AO and duly complied with it. 5.1 The ld.AR has also not vehemently argued in support of the ground before us. We find no infirmity in the action of the AO in initiation of proceedings

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI vs. PERRY IMPEX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 147/148 of the I.T. Act. 1961. From the assessment order, it was observed that the assessee had acknowledged the notice issued by the AO and duly complied with it. 5.1 The ld.AR has also not vehemently argued in support of the ground before us. We find no infirmity in the action of the AO in initiation of proceedings

PERRY IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

section 147/148 of the I.T. Act. 1961. From the assessment order, it was observed that the assessee had acknowledged the notice issued by the AO and duly complied with it. 5.1 The ld.AR has also not vehemently argued in support of the ground before us. We find no infirmity in the action of the AO in initiation of proceedings