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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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", "234C", "234D

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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