DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

section 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

263 and not Section 143(3) of the Act. 22. The issue is not under which section the proceedings were initiated but the issue is that if an assessee accepts certain percentage of unproved purchases as his income then whether the additions should be made of certain percentage or the entire purchases. In our view, this decision supports the view

JAGUAR SERVICES PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

section 263 of the Act by holding that 25% of the alleged bogus purchase should be added to the total

ANUMITA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

bogus penny stock transactions aggregating to Rs. 38,15,945/-, andsearch action in the case of Shri Naresh Jain allegedly revealed that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries aggregating to Rs. 20,04,080/-.\n6. According to the PCIT, the reassessment order dated 28.02.2023 did not reflect any enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer into the tax implications

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order dt. 23-06-2022. 7. The assessee

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order dt. 23-06-2022. 7. The assessee

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

263 and not Section 143(3) of the\nAct.\n22. The issue is not under which section the proceedings were initiated but the\nissue is that if an assessee accepts certain percentage of unproved purchases\nas his income then whether the additions should be made of certain\npercentage or the entire purchases. In our view, this decision supports the\nview

MANISH KANTILAL KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 World Group” entities along with residential and office premises of entities along with residential and office premises of entities along with residential and office premises of the assessee. 3.1 Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section Pursuant to the said search action

MANISH KANTILAL KAPADIA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

263, 280 to 284/MUM/2025 World Group” entities along with residential and office premises of entities along with residential and office premises of entities along with residential and office premises of the assessee. 3.1 Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section Pursuant to the said search action, a notice under section Pursuant to the said search action

VISHWA GLASS AND CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14

bogus accommodation entries and; (ii) payment of donation, were already dropped by the learned PCIT vide its order passed under section 263 of the Act considering the submission of the assessee. Thus, it was submitted that the revisional order passed under section 263 was rightly confined to the issue of ‘other investment’ amounting to Rs.48,96,099/-, which

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THANA RAM MANGI LAL CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary Vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4Th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. Pan: Afepc 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and same was also

JAYANTILAL RAJMAL SETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

263 against the order of order of the AO passed itself being bad in law on various the AO passed itself being bad in law on various counts the review of the order also being bad in law and counts the review of the order also being bad in law and counts the review of the order also being

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. R MEHTA & CO, MUMBAI

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

sections 68 and 69C of the L.T. Act. 9. Findings and conclusion Therefore on the basis of the findings of facts as discussed above and also following the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which was later confirmed by the Hon. Apex court and considering all the circumstances it is held that the books of accounts

INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUKESH HIRACHAND SANGHVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

263 of the Act, Commissioner Of Income Tax-15,\nset aside assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) and directed\nthe Assessing Officer to pass assessment order afresh after\nverification of facts of genuineness of purchases. Assessee's\nrepresentative Shri Shubhash Trivedi, CA, participated, in the\nfresh assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer found that\nthe assessee derived income from business and received

JAYSHREE RAVI SANCHETI,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to the limited extent, to enhance and modify the assessment order with reference to commission expenses and purchase price as discussed above, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 3. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that during reassessment proceedings, the AO called on various details pertaining

SHUMMY POULOSE PUTHANANGADY,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 27, MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the Act, the\nassessee submitted that he had purchased the shares from M/s. Kamalakshi\nFinance Corporation Ltd. and he had not entered into any transaction with\nM/s. Durable Vinimay Pvt Ltd. during the year under consideration. The\nassessee also submitted that the AO has conducted all the necessary inquiries\nand verification to verify the genuineness

MR. ROHIT VALLABHDAS SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

section 263 of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner could not have set aside the assessment order. 2 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah AY 2010-11 3. At the outset, it is to be noted that Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate represented the assessee in the course of hearing held