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

251 Total Total 2,75,25,669/ 2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee must

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 69C are not applicable despite clear findings that the purchases were non clear findings that the purchases were non-genuine and made through shell genuine and made through shell entities merely for providing accommodation entries entities merely for providing accommodation entries 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

bogus purchases of Rs. 5,06,530/-, and this view was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P Seth in ITA No. 3345/Mum/2017, while restricting only GP %?" “4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred night in deleting the penalty levied

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

bogus purchases of Rs. 5,06,530/-, and this view was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P Seth in ITA No. 3345/Mum/2017, while restricting only GP %?" “4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred night in deleting the penalty levied

MOTHER EXPORTS,SURAT vs. ACIT, CC 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Id. AO, without providing any opportunity of cross examination, without any corroborative evidence and without providing copy

ROSE GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Id. AO, without providing any opportunity of cross examination, without any corroborative evidence and without providing copy

MILES STONE,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC-1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Id. AO, without providing any opportunity of cross examination, without any corroborative evidence and without providing copy

PRIME STAR,SURAT vs. ACIT , CC-1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Id. AO, without providing any opportunity of cross examination, without any corroborative evidence and without providing copy

MADHUR GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Id. AO, without providing any opportunity of cross examination, without any corroborative evidence and without providing copy

BHUPENDRA SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CC 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhupendra Singh Karnawat 6/1974, 104, Jayshree, Harikrishna Acit,Cc-1(3) Comp. Dalgiya Sheri, Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mahindharapura, Mumbai-400 020 Surat -395 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aikpk8272C Sankhala Exports Pvt. Ltd Acit Cc-1(3) 5, Navyug Nagar, Teen Batti, Pratishtha Bhawan, Vs. Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs1855M

purchases, without appreciating the fact that for the very same assessee for previous assessment years, being A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2014-15, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the protective addition of alleged commission income, thereby not following the principal of consistency. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred

SANKHALA EXPORTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3_ , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Bhupendra Singh Karnawat 6/1974, 104, Jayshree, Harikrishna Acit,Cc-1(3) Comp. Dalgiya Sheri, Pratishtha Bhawan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mahindharapura, Mumbai-400 020 Surat -395 003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aikpk8272C Sankhala Exports Pvt. Ltd Acit Cc-1(3) 5, Navyug Nagar, Teen Batti, Pratishtha Bhawan, Vs. Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs1855M

purchases, without appreciating the fact that for the very same assessee for previous assessment years, being A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2014-15, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the protective addition of alleged commission income, thereby not following the principal of consistency. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases.? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 1,44,633/-, ignoring the fact that upon invoking provisions of section 271(1) (c), there is no further onus

LAXMI DIAMONDS ,SURAT vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, view of our judgment in ITA No

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

section 251(2) of the Act has been given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). On this count itself, this addition made on substantive basis in the sum of Rs 2,65,830/- towards commission on bogus sales is deleted. 6.2. Further we find that the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the order of this tribunal

M/S. NAVKAR INDIA,SURAT vs. ACIT CC -1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in\nviolation of the principles of natural justice.\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld.\nAO, without providing any opportunity of cross examination,\nwithout any corroborative evidence and without providing\ncopy of statements

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

bogus purchases of Rs. 1,01,43,657/-, and this view was confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P Seth in ITA No. 3345/Mum/2017, while restricting only GP% ? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CITIA) has erred in deleting the penalty levied, by ignoring the fact

SURYA DIAM,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC -1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the respective assesses are\nallowed

section 251(2) of the Act and principles of natural justice.\n\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld.\nAO, without providing any opportunity of cross-examination,\nwithout any corroborative evidence and without providing\ncopy of statements relied upon.\n\n3. Briefly stated

PANKAJ EXPORTS,GUJARAT vs. ACIT,CC-1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepankaj Exports Acit, Cc-1(3), 407, Devratna Pratistha Bhavan, बनाम/ Apartment Rampura M.K.Road, Vs. Main Road, Surat, Mumbai-400020. Gujarat – 395003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfp0478J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

section 251(2) of the Act has been given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). On this count itself, this addition made on substantive basis in the sum of Rs 2,65,830/- towards commission on bogus sales is deleted. 9 Pankaj Exports, Mumbai 6.2. Further we find that the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance

VIRMABHAI AJABAJI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

251/- as against the addition made by the ld. A.O. amounting to Rs.2,47,45,023/-. The impugned penalty of Rs.4,20,570/- was levied on the quantum of addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 11. In the above factual matrix, the ld. AR had relied on the following decisions where the co-ordinate benches have held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed whereas the\nappeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 69C are not applicable\ndespite clear findings that the purchases were non-genuine and made through shell\nentities merely for providing accommodation entries\n3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee could not establish the identity\nand creditworthiness