DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. AARTI JEWELLERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Cit, Cc-8(4), M/S Aarti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, 3Rd Floor, Hormuz Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 32, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Near Breach Candy, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aaaca4468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Anadi Varma (Cit Dr) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

260A is recommended by A.O. for adjudication before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,6,123/- u/s 69C made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid towards the accommodation entries taken towards bogus

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

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. METCRAFT ENGINEERING CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 260A- Whether disallowance regarding purchases made, can be made merely on the basis that the suppliers and other relating evidences are not produced before the assessing authority or before the first appellate authority. Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Bombay High Court. (4) The Hon'ble Gujarat High 'Court in the case of CIT v M.K.Brothers reported

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

bogus nature of the impugned purchases and consequential escapement of income. Therefore, having regard to the facts and material found by the CIT(Appeals), the initiation of proceedings under section have been rightly held to be ab-inito invalid. The order of the CIT(Appeals) on this aspect is hereby affirmed.” 2.3. In the aforesaid order, the jurisdictional Tribunal

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

DCIT - 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIRPAC FILTERS & SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit – 9(1)(1), M/S Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093

260A, 2nd Floor, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 40, Suren Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093 PAN: AAACA5728J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Revenue by : Shri V. Justin (DR) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh (AR) Date of Hearing: 07/11/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 29/11/2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ABHISHEK MILLENNIUM CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

260A, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s Abhishek Millennium Contracts Pvt. Vs Ltd., A-206, Oberoi Chambers, Opp. SAB TV Off., New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400053 [PAN:AAECA70004P] …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri Mehul Jain For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan Date of conclusion of hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ABHISHEK MILLENNIUM CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

260A, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s Abhishek Millennium Contracts Pvt. Vs Ltd., A-206, Oberoi Chambers, Opp. SAB TV Off., New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400053 [PAN:AAECA70004P] …………….… Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri Mehul Jain For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan Date of conclusion of hearing : 23.02.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

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

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

purchase of plots and sale of plots; therefore, the sale of plot is held on account of business activity.’ However, in the present case no such facts are available. In the present case, the plot was shown in the fixed asset and on one go the plot has sold by the assessee on the basis of ‘as is where

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

purchase of plots and sale of plots; therefore, the sale of plot is held on account of business activity.’ However, in the present case no such facts are available. In the present case, the plot was shown in the fixed asset and on one go the plot has sold by the assessee on the basis of ‘as is where

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

purchase of plots and sale of plots; therefore, the sale of plot is held on account of business activity.’ However, in the present case no such facts are available. In the present case, the plot was shown in the fixed asset and on one go the plot has sold by the assessee on the basis of ‘as is where

GAUTAM TUBE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 19, MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

bogus and the entire purchases were disallowed. Information was available on record in Assessment Year 2010-11 that Ms. Manjula Devi Vora, was a proprietor of M/s Navratan Impex and She tendered the statement on oath before the Sales Tax Authorities, ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 11 Gautam Tube Corporation admitting that she does not have any knowledge about the business activity

GAUTAM TUBE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 19, MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

bogus and the entire purchases were disallowed. Information was available on record in Assessment Year 2010-11 that Ms. Manjula Devi Vora, was a proprietor of M/s Navratan Impex and She tendered the statement on oath before the Sales Tax Authorities, ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 11 Gautam Tube Corporation admitting that she does not have any knowledge about the business activity

K.B. J JEWELLERY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

bogus shareholders had been detected their assessment could justifiably be re-opened; and thirdly that the amount of increased share capital could not be assessed in the hands of the company. The later two aspects undeniably possess the character of question of fact. Reference to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act (hereafter referred