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

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

270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention

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

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

270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention

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

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

270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention

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

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

270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention

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

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

270A of the Act in respect of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. In order to deal with the aforesaid contention

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

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

bogus purchases could be added in the hands of the Assessee. While affirming the conclusion drawn by the FAA, the Tribunal had observed that a presumption can be drawn that the Assessee had procured the material for execution of work, and that some of the purchases might have been made by the Assessee from the grey market after obtaining purchase

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

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

bogus purchases could be added in the hands of the Assessee. While affirming the conclusion drawn by the FAA, the Tribunal had observed that a presumption can be drawn that the Assessee had procured the material for execution of work, and that some of the purchases might have been made by the Assessee from the grey market after obtaining purchase

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

1 lac for reopening within six years if not\nstated invalid.\"\n06. The assessment is reopened on the ground of purchases\nmade amounting of Rs. 39,36,03,084 from above referred three\nparties. The facts show that the assessee sold goods worth Rs.\n39,36,03,084 to this three parties. Thus, the entire basis of\nreopening

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

1 lac for reopening within six years if not\nstated invalid.\"\n06. The assessment is reopened on the ground of purchases\nmade amounting of Rs. 39,36,03,084 from above referred three\nparties. The facts show that the assessee sold goods worth Rs.\n39,36,03,084 to this three parties. Thus, the entire basis of\nreopening

ABANS REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Appeals)\n52, Mumbai ['the Learned CIT (A)') erred in upholding the reopening of the\nAssessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) instead of\nquashing the same;\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ABANS REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of\nIncome tax (Appeals)\n52, Mumbai ['the Learned CIT (A)') erred in upholding the reopening of the\nAssessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) instead of\nquashing the same;\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

BAO VALUE FUND,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

270A of the Act for misreporting of income when there was no misreporting of income on the part of the appellant i.e. short term capital gain earned on sale of equity shares of Kushal Ltd was reported in the return of income that was filed. The appellant prays that the penalty proceedings initiated should be dropped. 8. On the facts

SHUBH MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) in the form of bogus sale and purchase bills in lieu of certain commission. Therefore Rs.5,00,000/- as 5% of commission earned on providing accommodation entry of Rs.1,00,00,000/- is added to the income of the assessee. The penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of income is also initiated separately

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

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