ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

274 (Gui) held that income used for inflated income used for inflated Purchase price and arising Purchase price and arising therefrom where the apparent sellers who had issued sale therefrom where the apparent sellers who had issued sale therefrom where the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable and that goods were received from bills were

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

274 (Gui) held that income used for inflated income used for inflated Purchase price and arising Purchase price and arising therefrom where the apparent sellers who had issued sale therefrom where the apparent sellers who had issued sale therefrom where the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable and that goods were received from bills were

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

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 of the Income Tax Act 1961 are hereby initiated on this issue for concealing the particulars

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 the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is sustainable or not. As the facts and circumstances leading to the addition in both these 08. appeals are similar, the learned Authorized Representative Ms. Ridhisha Jain, submitted a detailed written submission contesting the first ground of appeal stating that both the penalty

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 the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is sustainable or not. As the facts and circumstances leading to the addition in both these 08. appeals are similar, the learned Authorized Representative Ms. Ridhisha Jain, submitted a detailed written submission contesting the first ground of appeal stating that both the penalty

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchase of Rs.417,87,20,218/ Rs.417,87,20,218/- which has been provisions of section 115BBE, t held to be taxable u/s 69C will be chargeable to tax at the rate of 60% u/s 115BBE. held to be taxable u/s 69C will be chargeable to tax at the rate of 60% u/s 115BBE. held to be taxable

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THANA RAM MANGI LAL CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary Vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4Th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. Pan: Afepc 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and same was also

SH. RATNARAM KOHLARAM CHAUDARY (PROP. OF M/S. NUTECH METAL),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, though the assessee opposed imposition of penalty, however, rejecting such objection, the A.O. proceeded to impose penalty in all the assessment years under appeal. Though, the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty by filing appeals before ld. First appellate authority, however, he was unsuccessful. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused

SH. RATNARAM KOHLARAM CHAUDARY (PROP. OF M/S. NETECH METAL),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, though the assessee opposed imposition of penalty, however, rejecting such objection, the A.O. proceeded to impose penalty in all the assessment years under appeal. Though, the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty by filing appeals before ld. First appellate authority, however, he was unsuccessful. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused

SH. RATNARAM KOHLARAM CHAUDARY (PROP. OF M/S. NUTECH METAL),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, though the assessee opposed imposition of penalty, however, rejecting such objection, the A.O. proceeded to impose penalty in all the assessment years under appeal. Though, the assessee challenged the imposition of penalty by filing appeals before ld. First appellate authority, however, he was unsuccessful. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused

NAVEEN KUMAR, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases of Rs.74,38,050/-. The assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A). But later on, the appeals were withdrawn. The ld. AO, by invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, initiated the concealment penalty proceedings by issuance of notice under section 274

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchases from the bogus parties, as discussed above in FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 is hereby disallowed and is added to the total income of the assessee in AY 2013-14 as bogus expense. Penalty U/s 271(1) (c) r.ws 274 of the Act, is initiate for concealment of income. (Disallowance