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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

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

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

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

b) Ajay Loknath Lohia v. ITO, (ITA No. 2998/Mum./2017) (order dated 5.10.2018) In this case, the AO reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.15,90,000 by making addition towards 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchase made from hawala dealers. Thereafter, the AO levied 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

b) Ajay Loknath Lohia v. ITO, (ITA No. 2998/Mum./2017) (order dated 5.10.2018) In this case, the AO reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.15,90,000 by making addition towards 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchase made from hawala dealers. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

section 234A. 234B and 234C and 234D of the Act 234C and 234D of the Act 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under

M/S SUPERTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 27 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

bogus purchases. 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) challenging the levy of the aforesaid penalty. Before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Appellant that (a) the penalty notice, dated 05/03/2015 issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was bad in law as the same had been

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for concealment of income. 1961 is initiated for concealment of income.” 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the reopening On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the reopening On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the reopening proceedings, however however restricted the disallowance

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for concealment of income. 1961 is initiated for concealment of income.” 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the reopening On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the reopening On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) justified the reopening proceedings, however however restricted the disallowance

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 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, 1, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including purchases to the satisfaction

FABRIKANT TRADING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of issuing Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) without specifying the charge for which the notice was issued i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)( c ) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not challenge the assessment order and accepted additions so made thereby accepting the concealment of income. We find from the record that the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records