MIRAH DEKOR PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 14, MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

275) (Bombay HC)” Apropos issue of bogus purchase :- 20. As noted above there was survey conducted by the Mumbai sales tax department as per information from sales tax department the assessee indulged in bogus purchases as detailed in ground No. 1 above. The assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in cloth, textile, fabrics, furniture, gift articles and generation

DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PCI ANALYTICS P.TLD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

275 of the paper book. The perusal of the invoices indicates that order no, date and the details of lorry no were left blank. Though the appellant had filed voucher for transport paid which did not indicate the name of the concern. The payment was made by way of cash and it was self- made. 4. Abhilasha Sales Private Limited

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

M/S. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1823, 1819 & 1821/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

section 234A is not attracted. 5. Assessee has not pressed Ground no. 4.1 & 4.2, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 6. The main issue involved in the cross appeals is addition on account of bogus purchases. The AO has added 100% of bogus purchases which has been restricted to the addition on account of gross profit

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

GANESH TRADING CO.,THANE vs. ITO -3(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4657/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

section 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant denies his liability to the same. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, rescind or amend any of the above grounds of appeal.” The revenue on the other hand being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before

MILES STONE,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC-1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

275/- on bogus purchases of ₹ 16.17 crores and on bogus sales of ₹1.51 crores amounting to ₹11,394/-. The learned Assessing Officer has categorically held that the total undisclosed commission income of ₹18,95,851/- is added in the hands of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain on substantive basis for A.Y. 2015-16. This addition is also made in the hands

PRIME STAR,SURAT vs. ACIT , CC-1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

275/- on bogus purchases of ₹ 16.17 crores and on bogus sales of ₹1.51 crores amounting to ₹11,394/-. The learned Assessing Officer has categorically held that the total undisclosed commission income of ₹18,95,851/- is added in the hands of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain on substantive basis for A.Y. 2015-16. This addition is also made in the hands

ROSE GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

275/- on bogus purchases of ₹ 16.17 crores and on bogus sales of ₹1.51 crores amounting to ₹11,394/-. The learned Assessing Officer has categorically held that the total undisclosed commission income of ₹18,95,851/- is added in the hands of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain on substantive basis for A.Y. 2015-16. This addition is also made in the hands

MOTHER EXPORTS,SURAT vs. ACIT, CC 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

275/- on bogus purchases of ₹ 16.17 crores and on bogus sales of ₹1.51 crores amounting to ₹11,394/-. The learned Assessing Officer has categorically held that the total undisclosed commission income of ₹18,95,851/- is added in the hands of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain on substantive basis for A.Y. 2015-16. This addition is also made in the hands

MADHUR GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the above extent for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Prime Star 3-M, Ambika Darshan The Acit Moti Kadiya Sheri Central Circle-1(3) Sayedpura, Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan Surat, Gujarat-395003 Mumbai

275/- on bogus purchases of ₹ 16.17 crores and on bogus sales of ₹1.51 crores amounting to ₹11,394/-. The learned Assessing Officer has categorically held that the total undisclosed commission income of ₹18,95,851/- is added in the hands of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain on substantive basis for A.Y. 2015-16. This addition is also made in the hands

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus and non genuine, this was admitted as such in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. This being the case, now assessee is claiming that this should be allowed as deduction by relying on the CBDT circular and certain decisions to claim that the disallowance of the purchases will increase the income which are eligible to get exemption

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus and non genuine, this was admitted as such in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. This being the case, now assessee is claiming that this should be allowed as deduction by relying on the CBDT circular and certain decisions to claim that the disallowance of the purchases will increase the income which are eligible to get exemption

ITO WARD 2 (3), THANE vs. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR NATHALAL TRIVEDI , MIRA ROAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

bogus purchases and GP from genuine purchases. He further referred to ten judgments of various co-ordinate Benches on the similar issue. 018. On the issue of notice and satisfaction, he referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) as well as on approval

CHANDRASHEKHAR NATHALAL TRIVEDI,MIRA ROAD vs. ITO WARD 2 (5), THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi Income Tax Officer, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ward 2(5), Thane Room No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. East, Thane-401107 Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16- Z, Thane(W)-400604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapt3199H Income Tax Officer, 2(5), Room Chandrasekhar Nathalal Trivedi No. 13, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, 704, Akash Ganga, Near Jangid Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Circle, Mtnl Road, Mira Road Vs. Estate, Road No.16-Z, East, Thane-401107 Thane(W)-400604

bogus purchases and GP from genuine purchases. He further referred to ten judgments of various co-ordinate Benches on the similar issue. 018. On the issue of notice and satisfaction, he referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) as well as on approval

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

bogus purchases from one M/s. U.M Exports to the extent of Rs.4,90,275/-. Merely noticing such information, the Assessing Officer proceeds to record a belief that income chargeable to the aforesaid extent had escaped assessment. In the context of such recording of reasons the CIT(Appeals) referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. PROVOGUE (INDIA) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

275 under section 14A r/w rule 8D towards expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The assessee challenged the addition before the first appellate authority. 4. As far as the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A is concerned, it was argued before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by the assessee that such addition having not been made