DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

bogus purchases was available. Penalty order under Section 271 of the Act was passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

bogus purchases was available. Penalty order under Section 271 of the Act was passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1

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 ()

271(1)(c) of the Act levied based on estimated addition of the Act levied based on estimated addition of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete

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 ()

271(1)(c) of the Act levied based on estimated addition of the Act levied based on estimated addition of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act observing that the addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases was sustained to the extent of 2% such purchases, and since the addition was sustained on estimate basis, Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 penalty under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the Income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the Income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, this legal ground is also adjudicated against the assessee. Thus, the assessee fails on both legal ground as well on merits of the issue with respect to deposit of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account for which penalty as levied

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue