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

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

purchase from the bogus parties, as discussed above in FY 2016-2017 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby disallowed and is added to the total income of the assessee in Assessment Year 2017- 18 as bogus expense. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A

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

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

purchase from the bogus parties, as discussed above in FY 2016-2017 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby disallowed and is added to the total income of the assessee in Assessment Year 2017- 18 as bogus expense. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A

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

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

purchase from the bogus parties, as discussed above in FY 2016-2017 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby disallowed and is added to the total income of the assessee in Assessment Year 2017- 18 as bogus expense. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A

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

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

purchase from the bogus parties, as discussed above in FY 2016-2017 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby disallowed and is added to the total income of the assessee in Assessment Year 2017- 18 as bogus expense. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A

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

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

purchase from the bogus parties, as discussed above in FY 2016-2017 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 is hereby disallowed and is added to the total income of the assessee in Assessment Year 2017- 18 as bogus expense. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A

HI-TECH ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), BANDRA MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

purchases were bogus and had merely related upon the report of the Investigation Wing; and (c) that the additions were made on estimate basis. It was further submitted that in the penalty notices dated 30/09/2021 and 23/11/2023, the Assessing Officer had specified whether penalty was leviable for under-reporting of income in terms of Section 270A

HI-TECH ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI,

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

purchases were bogus and had merely related upon the report of the Investigation Wing; and (c) that the additions were made on estimate basis. It was further submitted that in the penalty notices dated 30/09/2021 and 23/11/2023, the Assessing Officer had specified whether penalty was leviable for under-reporting of income in terms of Section 270A

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus nature. Thus, the disallowance of purchase of Rs. 76,56,99,535/- has no leg to stand, therefore, entire purchase disallowance of Rs. 76,56,99,535/- is hereby deleted. (11) 1. xx (12) 1. xx Since penalty under section 270A

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAIDEEP METALLICS AND ALLOY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus nature. Thus, the disallowance of purchase of Rs. 76,56,99,535/- has no leg to stand, therefore, entire purchase disallowance of Rs. 76,56,99,535/- is hereby deleted. (11) 1. xx (12) 1. xx Since penalty under section 270A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

270A" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure on bogus purchases was justified, and if the CIT(A) erred

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchases from non-genuine entities for accommodation entries.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the AO committed a fundamental factual error by treating recorded sales as unexplained purchases. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were recorded in books, routed through banking channels, and supported by VAT returns, making Section 69C inapplicable. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred

JUNGHEINRICH LIFT TRUCK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Asst. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited 203 204, 2 N D Floor Tax Vs. Delphi A Wing, Central Avenue, Circle 15(2)(2) Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Mumbai-400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccj7808G

bogus and disallowed the same under section 43AA of the Act. 2.7 The learned AO erred in not issuing remand report as requested by the learned DRP for passing their directions. 2.8 The learned AO / learned DRP ought to have appreciated the foreign exchange gain of earlier years was duly offered to tax by the appellant. However, the foreign exchange

WRITER BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases, we notice that the assessee could not furnish explanations, since it had accounted those purchases under the trade name of M/s KLS Packaging Industries, while the assessing officer has noted it down in the name of the proprietor Shri Krishan Lal. However, the very same PAN number has been noted by the assessee and AO. This fact substantiates

RAMESH KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleramesh Kumar Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir, 1(2) Flat No. 702, 7Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg, 7Th 13A, Kao Siddhi Floor, Mumbai – 20. Vinayak Bldg, Adeshar Dada St, Cp Tank Road, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapj5347C Appellant .. Respondent

bogus purchase bills to various persons by using the company Akruthi Metals & Allys Pvt Ltd. The assessee also provided accommodation entries to M/s ABG Shipyard Ltd. The A.O. made additions on account of commission income earned on accommodation entries as no books of accounts are maintained. Further, the A.O in the search operations found the jewellery and cash. The assessee

THE BYKE HOSPITALITY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2(2) (1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Byke Hospitality Ltd., National Faceless Appeal 156-158 Chakravarty Ashok Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Complex, Mumbai, Sahar P & T Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(1), Colony S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400099. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaack 2113 R Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Ms. Shivangi Chopara, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

270A of the Income Tax Act. Income Tax Act. 2. Briefly stated, fa Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee was cts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of hotel and tourism. In the year under engaged in the business of hotel and tourism. In the year under engaged

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148 of the Act. 24. Thus, if we follow the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, it becomes manifest that foundational material alone would be relevant for the purpose of evaluating whether re-assessment powers were justifiably invoked. The ld. AO cannot take fresh ground while passing the order u/s. 148A(d). Thus

CEC-ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148 of the Act. 24. Thus, if we follow the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, it becomes manifest that foundational material alone would be relevant for the purpose of evaluating whether re-assessment powers were justifiably invoked. The ld. AO cannot take fresh ground while passing the order u/s. 148A(d). Thus

CEC - ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 148 of the Act. 24. Thus, if we follow the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, it becomes manifest that foundational material alone would be relevant for the purpose of evaluating whether re-assessment powers were justifiably invoked. The ld. AO cannot take fresh ground while passing the order u/s. 148A(d). Thus