HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus purchases and fictitious sales booked by the assessee in its books of account on the ground that although the assessee claims to have booked fictitious sales in its books of account in order to enhance sales turnover for the purpose of obtaining bank finance, but failed to file necessary evidence to prove that sales turnover booked in books

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus purchases and fictitious sales booked by the assessee in its books of account on the ground that although the assessee claims to have booked fictitious sales in its books of account in order to enhance sales turnover for the purpose of obtaining bank finance, but failed to file necessary evidence to prove that sales turnover booked in books

KHANGARAM K DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 148 of the Act. 6. While making argument While making argument in support of the first issue, t in support of the first issue, the Ld. counsel referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are available on page

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 148 of the Act. 6. While making argument While making argument in support of the first issue, t in support of the first issue, the Ld. counsel referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are available on page

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 148 of the Act. 6. While making argument While making argument in support of the first issue, t in support of the first issue, the Ld. counsel referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the referred to “reasons to believe” recorded by the Assessing Officer, which are available on page

ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BABULAL U MUNOT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

264/- from different parties. The Assessing Officer issued the notices to the parties u/s 133(6) of the Act but the 6 parties has not been traceable. The name of the 6 parties are hereby mentioned below: - Sr. No Name of the parties Amount (Rs) Remarks 1 B.P.T Tube Corporation (Prop. Shri 2,43,910 Served but no Abbas

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

purchase entries to the tune of Rs. 2,39,83,261/- from 28 bogus entry providers which formed the reasons to believe by the AO in forming an opinion that income has escaped assessment and the information so received ITA 4463/Mum/2016 15 by the AO has live link with reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, wherein the Revenue

JITENDRA M KITAVAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

purchase bill,copy of return of income filed by LD for the year under appeal-were submitted before the departmental authorities,that in its affidavit LD had admitted of advancing loans,that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were proved beyond doubt,that money was returned back to the lender in the subsequent year,that LD had admitted receiving

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

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 ()

bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section 145(3) of the Act, he rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected the books of account and, treating the Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 5 ITA Nos. 264

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 ()

bogus purchases and sales. Invoking section 145(3) of the Act, he rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected the books of account and, treating the e rejected the books of account and, treating the Manish Kantilal Kapadia & Rekha Manish Kapadia Manish Kantilal Kapadia 5 ITA Nos. 264

ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA MADANLAL KITAWAT (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

purchase bill,copy of return of income filed by LD for the year under appeal-were submitted before the departmental authorities,that in its affidavit LD had admitted of advancing loans,that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions were proved beyond doubt,that money was returned back to the lender in the subsequent year,that LD had admitted receiving

DCIT -CC5(2) CENTRAL RG., -5,, MUMBAI vs. M/S. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

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) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बनाम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/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 ITA No.879 to 883/M/2021 & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories Ltd 52 professional fees paid

RUPESH CHIMANLAL SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(3), KALYAN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Appeal No.6179-6182/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs. Ito 3(3) Prop. Of Savla International 2Nd Floor, 16, Royal Tusk, B.S. Road Rani Mansion Dadar (W) Murbad `Road, Kalyan Mumbai – 400 028 (West), Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amrps4468B अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellants By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Shri Nagin Parikh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Rm Madhavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-I, Thane Dated 25.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With 147 Of The Act. As The Facts & Issues Are Identical All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2.1 Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) In Sustaining The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Act In All These Appeals. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits, The Reopening Of 2 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

Section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act. From the information obtained by the Assessing Officer from Sales Tax department, he was of the opinion that Assessee has also obtained bogus purchase bills from various parties listed in the Sales Tax department website. In the course of Assessment proceedings, from the details filed by 3 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

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

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

purchase entries to the tune of Rs. 19,31,040/- from 2 bogus entry providers which formed the reasons to believe by the AO in forming an opinion that income has escaped assessment and the information so received by the AO has live link with reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, wherein the Revenue recorded reasons to believe

DCIT- CC5(2), MUMBAI vs. IPCA LABORATORIES LTD., MUMBAI

bogus purchases to 8% of the value of supplies \nacross all AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. With these \ndirections, the grounds of the assessee are partly allowed and the \ngrounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.\n10. Issue 7: Disallowance of professional fees paid\nGround Nos. 8-11 of the Revenue’s appeal