DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vii) or towards provision for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) and decide the taxability in accordance with law. Disallowance due to re-computation of deduction under section 36(1)(viia) – Ground No.2 in assessee's appeal & Ground No.2 in revenue's appeal 8. The assessee for the year under consideration has debited

DENA BANK,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

vii) of the Act, then when the recovery of the same in subsequent years needs to be 33 Dena Bank offered to tax u/s 41(4) of the Act. In respect of payment towards contribution to the gratuity fund, whether or not deduction is allowed in full on payment basis in this year, but the same needs to be allowed

PID P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

purchase. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the disallowance on account of bogus expenses/purchases was confirmed and the disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) on account of commission to Directors was deleted. Thus, the Revenue has filed appeal against the deletion of disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) and the assessee filed Cross Objection against sustaining the alleged bogus expenses/purchases

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

vii) It is also emanated from the records and orders mentioned (supra), that assessee never succeeded in countering percentage disallowance out of purchases made. 6. In view of the above facts, the contention of the assessee that no penalty can be levied in the case of G.P. Addition or disallowances made on estimation basis is not sustainable. As the same

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

36,53,266. The assessee has declared net profit of Rs. 4,42,515/- from his proprietary concern, m/s Gururaj Metals. The assesse is registered under MVAT and filing the VAT returns regularly. Various judicial pronouncements have been submitted to your honour vide paper book 1 B..During the courses of assessment proceedings, the AO had issued notice

ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent M/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

bogus purchases @ 10% of the impugned/bogus purchases. In the result, Ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal is partly allowed. ITA No.3569 & 3570/M/16- M/s Allied Digital Services Ltd. 9. Ground No.3 & 4 relates to disallowance under section 14A. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the relevant Financial Year, the assessee earned exempt income

ASST CIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PRASHANT PROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee as well revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4621/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Acit 15(2)(2) Prashant Projects Ltd., R.No. 403, 4 T H Floor, R.No. 406-408, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 57, V. M.K. Road, Hermes Atrium, Mumbai 400020 Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabci0639P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

bogus purchases obtained by the assessee with an intention to reduce profits of the assessee by inflation of purchases , which led to addition to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.24,51,435/- by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Tender fee of Rs. 2,12,055/- 10. The AO observed from the perusal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TMF HOLDINGS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

bogus transaction, the disclosures made could not be said to be all "true" and "full" Relying upon the said judgment the High Court held that merely because the transaction of convertible bonds was disclosed at the time of original assessment does not mean that there is true and full disclosure of facts. 28. We are unable to agree with this

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

The appeals are partly allowed

36,18,072 10 Naman Enterprises 1,67,925 11 Nisha Enterprises 5,79,398 12 Deep Enterprises 15,31,399 13 VidhiS, Vrushts Trade P. Ltd. 7,64,660 14 Sthapna Trade Impex P. Ltd. 81,563 TOTAL 4,23,37,325 The following facts emerge from the above: (i) Since the assessee has shown bogus purchases and claimed

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

vii) Sample copies of bills of respective parties. 11. Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee with the following observations: - • As per section 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the expenses including purchases to the satisfaction of the AO, which was not discharged by the assessee

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

vii) Sample copies of bills of respective parties. 11. Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee with the following observations: - • As per section 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the expenses including purchases to the satisfaction of the AO, which was not discharged by the assessee

KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGG PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

vii), Section 36(1)(viia) and in respect of foreign exchange rate difference. Neither in the first order of reassessment dated 22 February 2000 nor in the second order of reassessment dated 26 March 2002 were these aspects determined. In other words on the aforesaid three issues, the original order of assessment dated 10 March 1999 passed under Section

MODERN ROAD MAKERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 37 of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in reducing the proportionate amount of addition whereas, the AO had added the amount attributable to payment of commission without which the assessee could not have managed accommodation entries represented by bogus purchases

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. MODERN ROAD MAKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 37 of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in reducing the proportionate amount of addition whereas, the AO had added the amount attributable to payment of commission without which the assessee could not have managed accommodation entries represented by bogus purchases

TUTOR INVESTMENT AND FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

bogus by the AO, Broker memos, Share valuation certificates, Broker memos with respect to F&O losses as well. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the materials available on record. In our opinion, the new P a g e | 5 ITA No. 287,288,289, 290 &291/Mum/2025