DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S UNION OF BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR - (LTU)-2, MUMBAI

section 36(1)(viii)\nhad come up before the Tribunal in ITA NO.1627/Mum/2014(supra). The Tribunal\nvide order dated 08/01/2016 has remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing\nOfficer to allow the deduction based on actual interest earned from eligible advances\nafter deducting cost and expenses on reasonable basis. The CIT(A) has restored the\nissue to Assessing

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

viii. The assessee argued that the payments were made by cheque. After considering the evidences, there can be no doubt that the cheque payments were a part of the modus operandi to book bogus purchases from Hawala parties who only provided entries, did not do any business and issued bogus bills and thereby evade taxes. Cheque payments cannot prove

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

viii. The assessee argued that the payments were made by cheque. After considering the evidences, there can be no doubt that the cheque payments were a part of the modus operandi to book bogus purchases from Hawala parties who only provided entries, did not do any business and issued bogus bills and thereby evade taxes. Cheque payments cannot prove

M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

DCIT, CC-7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PATANJALI FOODS LTD.,( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

bogus. Referring to these observations, the AO held that, the assessee, in the present case, had sold a commodity at a price higher than the original purchase price, and then re-purchased it back at a lower price. This according to him implied that the purchases were inflated. The AO accordingly disallowed the inflated payments for purchases quantified at Rs.139

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

viii. She also raised additional issue that learned Assessing Officer challenges penalty orders, but they are below the requisite monetary limit and therefore, as per CBDT Circular 2/18 dated 7thNovember 2018, amended further on 20thAugust 2018, these are low tax effect penalty appeals which could not have been preferred by the learned Assessing Officer. For this proposition, she also relied

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN vs. RASHESH SHIRISHKUMAR BHUTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

viii. She also raised additional issue that learned Assessing Officer challenges penalty orders, but they are below the requisite monetary limit and therefore, as per CBDT Circular 2/18 dated 7thNovember 2018, amended further on 20thAugust 2018, these are low tax effect penalty appeals which could not have been preferred by the learned Assessing Officer. For this proposition, she also relied

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus on the basis of assumptions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.38,24,608 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs 38,24,608 gets deleted. Appeal on this ground is thus PARTLY ALLOWED.” 28. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee re-iterated the arguments made

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus on the basis of assumptions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.38,24,608 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs 38,24,608 gets deleted. Appeal on this ground is thus PARTLY ALLOWED.” 28. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee re-iterated the arguments made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus on the basis of assumptions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.38,24,608 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs 38,24,608 gets deleted. Appeal on this ground is thus PARTLY ALLOWED.” 28. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee re-iterated the arguments made

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus on the basis of assumptions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.38,24,608 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs 38,24,608 gets deleted. Appeal on this ground is thus PARTLY ALLOWED.” 28. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee re-iterated the arguments made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVSHANKAR RAMSWAROOP SHARMA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus on the basis of assumptions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.38,24,608 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs 38,24,608 gets deleted. Appeal on this ground is thus PARTLY ALLOWED.” 28. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee re-iterated the arguments made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 8 (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus on the basis of assumptions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.38,24,608 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of Rs 38,24,608 gets deleted. Appeal on this ground is thus PARTLY ALLOWED.” 28. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee re-iterated the arguments made

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

36,916/-. The brief facts qua the\nissue in dispute are that the information received from Sales Tax\nDepartment through Investigation Wing, the assessee has shown to\nbe received bogus bills from following parties:\n\nName of the Party\nAmount of transaction (Rs.)\nM/s. Appex Steel\n2008-09\n21166608/-\nM/s. Tara Enterprises\n2008-09\n15988608/-\nM/s. Shyam Corporarion\n2008