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

253. The hon. CIT(A) has erred in assuming that the books of accounts have hon. CIT(A) has erred in assuming that the books of accounts have hon. CIT(A) has erred in assuming that the books of accounts have been rejected when they have not been rejected. The assessment been rejected when they have not been rejected

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

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

VIVEK VINOD VAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

ITO 3(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

DCIT 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WATERMARK SYSTEMS (INDIA) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253(4) of the Act. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the Commissioner A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Watermark F. Consultants Ltd. M/s. Watermark System India P. Ltd. (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross objections." 15. The first question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue

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

2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the bogus purchases @ 25% as against 100% addition of Rs. 37,35,984/- made by the AО, on account of bogus purchases from M/s. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Metalex Tube Industries, without appreciating the fact that

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

ITO 19.3.1, , MUMBAI vs. MEHTA SURESH UKHCHAND HUF, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

2 Mehta Suresh Ukhchand HUF 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITYA) has erred in appreciating the fact that though there was no dispute that the bogus purchases were made and so act of infraction of law was committed in violation of section 74(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added

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