JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

1)", "Section 10(34)", "Section 234A", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 234D"], "issues": "Whether the purchases of gold coins were bogus and disallowable under Section 37

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

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, 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

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

purchases as bogus and disallowed the expenses under Section 37(1).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchases. The purchases were treated as unexplained business expenditure and disallowed under Section 37(1). For AY 2016-17, dividend

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that perpetual bonds are in the nature of debt instruments with no maturity date. Only the issuing company can buy back the bonds from the investors. Therefore, it was held these bonds are perpetual in nature. Since in the case of perpetual bonds, the investor

JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchases of gold from\nM/s Swastik Corporation during the relevant previous years. The\npurchases were treated as not genuine, and the corresponding\nexpenditure was held to be unexplained business expenditure,\nresulting in disallowance under section 37(1

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

1 to 160\nof the paper book filed by the assessee. It is noticed that assessing officer has\nspecifically asked the assessee vide notice dated 24.11.2016 to provide the detail\nof income tax reversal on distribution of unsecured perpetual securities. In this\nregard assessee has given detailed submission vide letter dated 16.12.2016\nstating that it has issued 11.4% unsecured perpetual

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

37,494 82,83,929 1,03,74,183 1,03,74,183 47,15,958 Corporation Rushabh 5,52,061 15,78,169 42,68,362 14,10,472 39,29,810 91,53,471 1,00,15,119 1,00,15,119 46,79,707 Trading Co. Bharti 1,61,14,589 2,41,60,848 1