BINAL VIKASH BHARDWAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

246A before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 07.10.2015 had deleted entire addition made on account of bogus purchases. The department had filed appeal against the order of CIT(A) before ITAT. The ITAT vide order dated 08.11.2017 restore the matter to the file of AO for adjudicating 'de novo' with proper appreciation of facts. The appellant

BINAL VIKASH BHARDWAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

246A before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 07.10.2015 had deleted entire addition made on account of bogus purchases. The department had filed appeal against the order of CIT(A) before ITAT. The ITAT vide order dated 08.11.2017 restore the matter to the file of AO for adjudicating 'de novo' with proper appreciation of facts. The appellant

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

purchase made from the above party. Accordingly he made addition of `45,90,435/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment, order the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority was time barred by 285 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation

SANJAY NARENDRA BANSAL ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 26.12.2018 for the AY 2014-15 making addition of Rs. 23,71,500/- on account of bogus purchases from M/s Man Diamonds. The assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before the ld. CIT(A) however the assessee remained non-compliant before the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons clarified in petition of condonation of delay

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJESH M SHAH(HUF), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7105/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus purchases/ unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. The concerns were literally controlled, operated and managed by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and his family. Those persons admitted this fact in the sworn statements recorded from them during the course of search operation and they have also admitted that Shri Bhanwarlal Jain made them to the position. On verification of the documents forwarded

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

purchase of prepaid cards. Only after the resale of those prepaid cards, distributors would derive income. At the time of the assessee selling these pre-paid cards, he is not in possession of any income belonging to the distributor. Therefore, the question of any income accruing or arising to the distributor at the point of time of sale of prepaid

TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

246A of the 'Act' before the CIT(A), therefore the final assessment order be passed, it can safely be gathered that the assessee company had not filed any objections to the proposed variations with the 'DRP and the A.O, pursuant whereto the period of limitation for framing of assessment in its case, is regulated by Sec. 144C