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

section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/-. In the said 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases

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

section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/-. In the said 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases

RATNAGIRI STAINLESS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4463/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Income Tax Officer 5(3)(1), बनाम/ Ltd., Mumbai. V. 21/23, Laxmi Niwas, 2 Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadcr2993P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

purchase entries to the tune of Rs. 2,39,83,261/- from 28 bogus entry providers which formed the reasons to believe by the AO in forming an opinion that income has escaped assessment and the information so received ITA 4463/Mum/2016 15 by the AO has live link with reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, wherein the Revenue

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

purchases are genuine. The assessee could not establish movement of material as well could not produce the parties before Revenue. The books of accounts were rejected by AO u/s 145(3) of 1961 Act. Thus, we are inclined to confirm the appellate order of learned CIT(A) and this appeal filed by the assessee is 31 Navnidhi Steel & Engg

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that in the present case the Assessment Year 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 claim for deduction for purchase expenses was ‘not substantiated by any evidence’. Therefore, the under-reporting of income by the Assessee cannot be regarded as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting

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

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)

section 263 and after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company limited vs CIT (surpa) held as under:- 26. The CIT has made reference to Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2015. Explanation-2 so introduced sets out cases in which order

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

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

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 1,11,90,753 3,55,02,056 7,00,04,319 5,23,62,604 5,23,62,604 2,07,29,385 Enterprises Hitesh

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE ( WATER SUPPLY- UMC) (J/V),ULHASNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4 , THANE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

1, 2 & 4 of the Revenue’s appeal and all the grounds taken by the assessee in their appeal relates to the addition of Rs.21,76,83,384/- made by the Assessing Officer in AY 2014-15 out of bogus purchases of Rs.37,95,26,087/- identified to have been made from thirty (30) vendors. The facts leading