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 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

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

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

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 145(3) of the I.T Act. The loss declared by the appellant in the return of income is rejected. The income is estimated at the rate of 0.5% of total sales and purchases. For the purpose of estimating commission income, I take the purchases and sales for the entire year. For the AY 2017-18, appellant has shown purchases

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Omkareswar Chidara

Section 145(3) of the I.T Act. The loss declared by the appellant in the return of income is rejected. The income is estimated at the rate of 0.5% of total sales and purchases. For the purpose of estimating commission income, I take the purchases and sales for the entire year. For the AY 2017-18, appellant has shown purchases

LINTAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

bogus or the purchases were found to be nongenuine. There may be many reasons that notices u/s 133 (6) remained unserved or not responded to. But, merely that fact, cannot result into disallowance. Further, it is not the case of the assessee that they have not deducted tax at source on payment made to most of the parties. To support

LINTAS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

bogus or the purchases were found to be nongenuine. There may be many reasons that notices u/s 133 (6) remained unserved or not responded to. But, merely that fact, cannot result into disallowance. Further, it is not the case of the assessee that they have not deducted tax at source on payment made to most of the parties. To support

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

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