A.S.MOTIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2773/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) As Motiwala Jewellers Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-12(2)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly Known As Ghazi Mumbai-400020. Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd) 40 Rebello Road Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg8165B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi/Ms Madhuri Tambe Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee, Assails The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition On Merits, To The Tune Of Rs.59,53,440/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). In Other Words, Assessee Assails The Action Of Ld Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of Ao, Wherein He Disallowed The Entire Purchases Of Diamonds Made From M/S. Mohit Enterprises (Alleged Concern Of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group).

bogus. Therefore, he show caused the assessee as to why the entire purchases from M/s. Mohit Enterprises should not be rejected, and added as income of the assessee. Pursuant to show cause notice, assessee filed to following documents to prove the genuineness of the purchases(i) copies of the bills of the suppliers, (ii) bill wise details of the purchases

HIREN CHINUBHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2772/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Hiren Chinubhai Shah बिधम/ Ito, Ward-22(1)(5) A-301, Savoy Residency Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Santacruz (West) S.O. Bandra (East), Mumbai- Mumbai, Mumbai-400054. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agups8207K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.20,84,190/- U/S 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Being 100% Of The Total Purchases Made From Two (2) Parties.

bogus purchases from paper concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain Group. And thus he disallowed 100% purchases made from the two concerns to the tune of Rs.20,84,190/- us/ 69C of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who was pleased to confirm the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before

SOBHAGMULL GOKALCHAND JEWELLERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Section 260A of the Act, made addition of INR 6,68,96,780/- being 100% of the alleged bogus purchases

JAIPRAKASH JINDAL,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO, WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Shri Gagan Goyal () - 2010-11 - 2009-10

260A and in ITA No. 2297 of 2018, dated 07/04/2022. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed Departmental appeal. Therefore, the disallowance of 1.6 per cent of the total bogus purchase got confirmed in AY 2010-11. Under the above stated circumstances, I am of the considered view that the reason of reopening, that the assessee had made bogus purchase through

DCIT CC 7(4), MUMBAI vs. PODDAR RENAISSANCE REALITY PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS IMPERIAL RENAISSAICE RENIASANCE REALITY PVT. LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit, Cc-7(4), Mumbai V/S. Poddar Renaissance Reality Room No. 659, Aaykar बनाम Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Bhavan, M.K. Road, Imperial Renaissance Mumbai-400020 Renaissance Reality Pvt. Ltd.) 501/601, Aqua Marine, Carter Road, Mumbai-400050030 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcp2657R Appellant/अपीलाथ" .. Respondent/"ितवादी

bogus purchases. Notably, the seized documents did not contain any evidence purchases. Notably, the seized documents did not contain any evidence purchases. Notably, the seized documents did not contain any evidence to substantiate the flow of such funds. Under these circumstances, to substantiate the flow of such funds. Under these circumstances, to substantiate the flow of such funds. Under these

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act 1961") is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 20-2-2020 in the ITA No.549/Ahd/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law for the consideration

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

section 10(38)\nHigh court by impugned order held that no substantial\nquestion of law. arose from Tribunal's order Whether SLP\nagainst said impugned order was to be dismissed -Held, yes\n(Para 2) (In favour of assessee)\n11. Similarly Hon'ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs.\nPrem Pal Gandhi

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

bogus has been demonstrated to be wrong by producing documentary evidence to the effect that the shares sold by the assessees were in consonance with the market price. On perusal of those documentary evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that the transactions were genuine. Nothing is brought on record to show that the findings recorded

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

bogus transactions from the parties which were operated or controlled by Shri Anil from the parties which were operated or controlled by Shri Anil from the parties which were operated or controlled by Shri Anil Kumar Jain and Shri Pravin Kumar Jain who were engaged in Jain and Shri Pravin Kumar Jain who were engaged in Jain and Shri Pravin

KETAN HARILAL MEHTA HUF BY ITS KARTA KETAN H MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-33(2)(2) MUMBAI PRESENTLY JURIDICTION WITH ITO 42(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 10(38) High court by impugned order held that no substantial question of law. arose from Tribunal's order - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed -Held, yes (Para 2) (In favour of assessee) 10. Similarly Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Prem Pal Gandhi

SANJAY MADANRAJ SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 32(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

section 10(38) High court by impugned order held that no substantial question of law. arose from Tribunal's order - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed -Held, yes (Para 2) (In favour of assessee) 11. Similarly Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Prem Pal Gandhi

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been filed challenging the order dated January 17, 2022, passed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'SMC' Lucknow in IT. A. No. 205 of 2020 (assessment year 2014-15). The basic question involved in the present appeal is with regard to deletion of some amount which was added

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 10(38) High court by impugned order held that no substantial question of law. arose from Tribunal's order - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed -Held, yes (Para 2) (In favour of assessee) 10. Similarly Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Prem Pal Gandhi

AMIT SAJJAN KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

section 10(38) High court by impugned order held that no substantial question of law. arose from Tribunal's order - Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed -Held, yes (Para 2) (In favour of assessee) 11. Similarly Hon’ble High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Prem Pal Gandhi

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

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

260A(7) read with Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) we think that the ITAT should not have precluded the assessees from raising the issue in the appeals instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Accordingly, the additional substantial question

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

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

260A(7) read with Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) we think that the ITAT should not have precluded the assessees from raising the issue in the appeals instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Accordingly, the additional substantial question

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

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

260A(7) read with Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) we think that the ITAT should not have precluded the assessees from raising the issue in the appeals instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Accordingly, the additional substantial question

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

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

260A(7) read with Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) we think that the ITAT should not have precluded the assessees from raising the issue in the appeals instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Accordingly, the additional substantial question