ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, 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

section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/-. In the said 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases and assessee is aggrieved by the amount of addition confirmed by the learned CIT – A and therefore both the parties are in appeal before us. 20-26 xx xx 27

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE vs. KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC)(JV) , ULHASNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

27,260/- by making further addition on account of bogus purchases was unjustified in law and he thus urged that the impugned order be quashed. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the action of AO. He argued that, the assessee had not placed the order of ITSC before the AO and therefore he cannot seek