ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, 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

250 be quashed. Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts

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

250 TAXMAN 0022 is very relevant here--Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of the Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of the Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in N.K. Gujarat High Court in N.K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR Industries

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

250 TAXMAN 0022 is very relevant here--Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of the Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of the Where assessee filed SLP to appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in N.K. Gujarat High Court in N.K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 292 CTR Industries

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

section 148 of the Act. In the present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. of pages of the information received from the of pages of the information received from the Sales

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

section 148 of the Act. In the present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. of pages of the information received from the of pages of the information received from the Sales

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 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, furth w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only er clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect of the books

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. S P INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No.6580/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11

250 of my predecessor for A.Yrs. 2011-12 & 2012-13 have been perused. The sole issue in this ground of appeal pertains to the addition of Rs. 12,52,880/- being the amount of bogus purchases made from M/s Aadi & M/s Kalash Enterprises. The appellant in the submission has argued that the AO has erred in making this addition

ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S CHINAR GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.\n2. The only issue that arises for our consideration in the present cross appeals pertains to the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

CHINAR GEMS,BG KHER ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 23(1)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. 2. The only issue that arises for our consideration in the present cross appeals pertains to the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11. 2 ITAs 2509 & 2510/Mum/2023 Vinipul Inorganics Foods Pvt Ltd 2. Since both the appeals carry identical addition under section 69C of the Act, hence we heard both the appeals together and the same are being disposed of by this common order

VINIPUL INORGANICS FOODS PVT LTD,CHEMBUR, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sh.Narendra Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11. 2 ITAs 2509 & 2510/Mum/2023 Vinipul Inorganics Foods Pvt Ltd 2. Since both the appeals carry identical addition under section 69C of the Act, hence we heard both the appeals together and the same are being disposed of by this common order

ITO, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKA TECHINFRA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2 ITA No.4369/M/2024 & CO No.249/M/2024 M/s. SKA Techinfra Pvt. Ltd. 2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the instant appeal and CO are that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 21.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, assessed the total

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 06.12.2024 for Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under: “1." Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the bogus purchases

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

250,34,42,660/-was treated as un-explained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. Further, another addition of Rs. 182,56,27,043/- towards bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

250,34,42,660/-was treated as un-explained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. Further, another addition of Rs. 182,56,27,043/- towards bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined

IPCA LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

bogus long-term capital gains and share capital etc. According to the Revenue, ACIAL was being managed and controlled by Shri Shah and thus in light of his statement given in the course of his search, the & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd professional fees paid to ACIAL was treated

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Since the present appeals pertain to the same assessee, raising similar issues arising out of the similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleviraj Profiles Pvt Ltd V. Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Nariman Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Central Circle- 3(2) V. Viraj Profiles Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Limited) Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor 1St Floor, Viraj Towers Air India Building, Nariman Jn Of Andheri Kurla Road Point W.E. Highway, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabcv1740N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Mani Jain Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

sections 37, 69, 69A, 69C in particular, bogus purchases are not allowed as expenditure. 3. The AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat HC in case of NK Industries ltd vs DCIT(2016) 292 CTR 354 wherein it was held that addition could not be restricted to certain percentage when the entire transaction was found to be bogus