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

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

SVP GLOBAL TEXTILES LTD FORMERLY SVP GLOBAL VENTURES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI MUMBAI, MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\niii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\niii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\niii.\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned

HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\niii. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned CIT A erred

SHRIVALLABH PITTE INDUSTRIES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned CIT A erred

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned CIT A erred

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

2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 18,95,951/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

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

2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 18,95,951/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

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

2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 18,95,951/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

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

2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 18,95,951/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

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

2. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 18,95,951/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

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

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. HELIOS MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

purchases and sales\ntransactions from 3% to 0.07% although the assessing\nofficer has rightly computed commission at the rate of 3%\nwhich is fair and reasonable, by placing reliance on various\njudicial pronouncement which is in the range of 5% to 6%\n\niii.\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law\nthe learned

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

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/-of the Act, by ignoring the provisions of the Section 2988 of the Act, which is relevant this case which defines that, no return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished

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

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 21,005/-of the Act, by ignoring the provisions of the Section 2988 of the Act, which is relevant this case which defines that, no return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished

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