NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

section 145 of the Act. circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases to 25% in place of 100% applied in the asses 100% applied in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal sment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases to 25% in place of 100% applied in the asses 100% applied in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal sment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

purchases are to be added as hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

purchases are to be added as hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are hawala purchases.Further, in cases, where the statements are recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the recorded and copies of which have been supplied

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

25% Purchase from bogus parties is justified. In the case CIT v/s Bholanath Poly Fab parties is justified. In the case CIT v/s Bholanath Poly Fab parties is justified. In the case CIT v/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. 355 IT 290 which was a case of Purchases from Pvt Ltd. 355 IT 290 which was a case of Purchases

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

25% Purchase from bogus parties is justified. In the case CIT v/s Bholanath Poly Fab parties is justified. In the case CIT v/s Bholanath Poly Fab parties is justified. In the case CIT v/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. 355 IT 290 which was a case of Purchases from Pvt Ltd. 355 IT 290 which was a case of Purchases

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. SALEM STEEL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

25% as against 100% addition of total purchases of Rs. 37,35,984/-, though there was no dispute that the bogus purchases were made and so act of infraction of law was committed in violation of section

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income.” 25. During the course of hearing both the sides adopted the submissions made in respect of appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 and agreed that our finding/adjudication on the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions