KHANGARAM K DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to On the issue of requirement of notice under section 143(2) to be issued and served subsequent be issued and served subsequent to filing of return of income, the ing of return of income, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Mumbai

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is\nin appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on unexplained\ndeposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal.\n4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on\nrecord including Paper Book containing pages 1 to 127 filed by the\nassessee and copy of various decisions filed by both

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is\nin appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on unexplained\ndeposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal.\n4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on\nrecord including Paper Book containing pages 1 to 127 filed by the\nassessee and copy of various decisions filed by both

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is in appeal whereas in respect of relief granted in appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on on unexplained deposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal. the Revenue is in appeal. 4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on We have heard rival submissions and material

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

bogus purchases as well as unexplained deposits, the assessee is in appeal whereas in respect of relief granted in appeal whereas in respect of relief granted on on unexplained deposit in the bank, the Revenue is in appeal. the Revenue is in appeal. 4.1 We have heard rival submissions and material placed on We have heard rival submissions and material

SUREAKSHA DB REALTY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 30(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Suraksha Db Realty The Dy. Commissioner Of Behind Orchid Suburbia, Ground Income-Tax 30(3), Floor, Off; Link Road, Kandivali Room No.601, C-13, Vs. 6Th Floor, Bkc, (West), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abofs0694R Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Department By : Shri Op Sharma, Cit Dr

bogus purchases made by the appellant. Non-e-filing of return of income and the information received were tangible material in the hands of AO, which resulted into the formation of the reason to believe that the income to the extent of ₹ 980,300/– chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for assessment year 2011 – 12. Once such a reason

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP C. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR -11, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in ITA No.281 to 287/Mum/2016 19 Dilip C. Shah pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity

DILIP SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri G.Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5739 To 5745/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02 To 2007-08) Shri Dilip Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 401, Spenta Towers, 55/57 Tax, Central Circle-11 Mumbai Vs. Forgett Street, Gowalia Tank Mumbai 400036. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwps4146B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any 22 Dilip Shah / Atul Sanghvi mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity with or according

ATUL SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri G.Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5739 To 5745/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02 To 2007-08) Shri Dilip Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 401, Spenta Towers, 55/57 Tax, Central Circle-11 Mumbai Vs. Forgett Street, Gowalia Tank Mumbai 400036. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwps4146B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Section 292B of the Act, observed that no assessment made in pursuance of any of the provisions I.T. Act, shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely because on any 22 Dilip Shah / Atul Sanghvi mistake, defect or omission in such assessment, if the said assessment in substance and in effect is in conformity with or according

ITO 27 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. LATE SMT. JASWANDI DHLAKIA, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2009-10

bogus 3 ITA No. 670/M/2019 & CO No. 18/M/2020 Late Smt. Jaswanti Dholakia purchases done by the ld. CIT(A) meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, I uphold the order of ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. In the cross-objection, assessee has raised the ground that :- “Reopening Assessment Order

EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATON,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22( 2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6617/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Earthmoving Equipment Deputy Commissioner Of Service Corporation Income Tax 613-614 22(2) बनाम/ Raikar Chambers Mumbai Vs. Kooverji Devshi Marg Govandi Mumbai – 400 088 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafe-1053-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. K.Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Ld.Ars ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Ld. Dr

Bogus purchases as the transactions were duly recorded in the books of account and the payments were made through banking channels from accounts which were duly reflected in the books of accounts. Further, the assessee accepted the quantum additions and did not contest the same any further in view of the fact that it could not obtain confirmatory letters from

ACIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S TORANE ISPAT UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhriacit-15(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Torane Ispat Udyog Room No. 480, Forth Floor, Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 49, Ground Floor, Cinewonder Mumbai-400020. Mall, Ghodbunder Road, Thane West, Mumbai-400607. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacct9196K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 292B of the Act which was introduced in the statute from A.Y 2008-09. 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in mentioning the amount of bogus purchase