BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

97 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai97Delhi58Ahmedabad28Bangalore19Jaipur9Chennai4Chandigarh3Surat2Kolkata2Pune2Raipur1Rajkot1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 147170Section 148138Section 143(3)109Addition to Income86Bogus Purchases66Penalty46Reassessment44Section 234A42Section 143(2)39

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2838/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 234C and 234D of the Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

Disallowance39
Natural Justice38
Section 271(1)(c)34

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

ITA 3898/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

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:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

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

ITA 3900/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

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:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

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

ITA 3899/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

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

ITA 567/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (SR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 69C

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

ITA 4463/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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)

For Appellant: Shri N.M. PorwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop,DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

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

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

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

ITA 4214/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

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

ITA 4143/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

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

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

ITA 2119/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri N. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

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

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

ITA 1114/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri N. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

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

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

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2994/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

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

ITA 3223/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

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

SHRI SHANTILAL C SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(3) (3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6038/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathashantilal C. Shah Vs. Ito-19(3)(3) Shop No.17, Mistry Building Matru Mandir 2Nd Floor, 159 Tardeo Road 2Nd Khumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Bdeps5540M (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

purchase solely on his own suspicion, surmises and conjectures and added the same as undisclosed income of the assessee in view of section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.36,54,193/- being peak credit of cash deposits

PAWANRAJ P. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WD - 19 (2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the e ground No

ITA 5403/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 4.32% by the appellant on such purchases.. (c) confirming addition of Rs. 1838022/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

PARASMAL F. SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19 (2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the e ground No

ITA 5405/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 6.88% by the appellant on such purchases.. (c) confirming addition of Rs. 1447743/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

M/S.FRAMROZE MARKETING CO. PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6650/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman. आअसं. 6650/मुं/2018 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S.Framroze Marketing Co. Private Limited, Unit No.9, 3Rd Floor, Prabhadevi Industrial Estate, Veer Savarkar Marg, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 025 Pan: Aaacf5027B बनाम/ Vs. The Acit -6(3)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subramaniyan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus purchases in line with the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court(supra). The ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In ground No.3 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and charging of interest under section 234A,234B 234C and 234D

CHIRAG R. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 3. This appeal by the assessee was earlier disposed of by this tribunal vide ex parte order dated 7.9.2017 subsequently in miscellaneous application moved by the assessee the said order was recalled. Pursuant to the aforesaid recall we have heard this appeal. In this case, the assessee is an Individual engaged

M/S.VALSONS METAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 5831/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Valsons Metal, The Ito – 19(3)(5), 110, Gulal Wadi, 1/19, Room No. 201, Matru Mandir, Bharja Bhavan, Kika Street, Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Aaafv3006B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ca) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (CA)For Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 3

purchases of Rs. 10,07,818/- as bogus non-genuine expenditure and thereby erred in adding the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B 234C and 234D

CHIMANALAL K. BOKADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO -WD- 19 (1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shri Chimanlal K Bokadia Vs Ito, Wd.(19)(1)(3), Mumbai M/S Ishwar Steel Corporation 15, Ardeshir Dady Cross Lane, Opp. Madhav Baug, Cp Tank, Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Ajepb4618C Appellant Respondednt

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 3.87% by the appellant on such purchases.. (c) confirming addition of Rs. 12,80,674/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred

MIRAJ ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL CO. P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3611/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

section. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 28/01/2015. 5.3.In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the extent of 25% on bogus purchases after considering various contentions and submissions of the assessee and by observing as under :- “10. In view of the above discussion