NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

37,251 Total Total 2,75,25,669/ 2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

DANCO ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

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

37,20,787/- under section 69C of the Act on under section 69C of the Act on account of purchases of various materials from M/s account of purchases of various materials from M/s account of purchases of various materials from M/s Basant Marketing Private Limited by treating them as Basant Marketing Private Limited by treating them as Basant Marketing Private

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 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases made by the assessee in the assessment order by holding that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 29. We note that in facts and circumstances identical to those prevailing in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015, Penalty of INR.5,37,612/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case