DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

40(3) are attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. Therefore, the cash commission paid @ 3% of the purchases Therefore

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

40(3) are attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. Therefore, the cash commission paid @ 3% of the purchases Therefore

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

40(3) are attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. Therefore, the cash commission paid @ 3% of the purchases Therefore

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

40(3) are attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in attracted. Considering the fact that the expense incurred is in cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. cash, provisions of section 40A(3) is attracted. Therefore, the cash commission paid @ 3% of the purchases Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

3) of the Act, so the proviso to section 147 is not attracted. The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the challenge of the reassessment The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the challenge of the reassessment The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the challenge of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was proceedings

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

3) of the Act, so the proviso to section 147 is not attracted. The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the challenge of the reassessment The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the challenge of the reassessment The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the challenge of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the Act was proceedings

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

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

bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the assessee failed failed failed to to to prove prove prove the the the genuineness genuineness genuineness of of of purchases, purchases, purchases, andany andany andany expenditure in respect of which payments by account payee expenditure in respect of which payments by account payee expenditure in respect of which payments by account payee cheques

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases rather than the whole of such purchases Without appreciating that such allowance of such purchases Without appreciating that such allowance of such purchases Without appreciating that such allowance of 87.5% of expenditure imply allowance of purchases made in 87.5% of expenditure imply allowance of purchases made in penditure imply allowance of purchases made in cash from the 'grey

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

bogus purchases rather than the whole of such purchases Without appreciating that such allowance of such purchases Without appreciating that such allowance of such purchases Without appreciating that such allowance of 87.5% of expenditure imply allowance of purchases made in 87.5% of expenditure imply allowance of purchases made in penditure imply allowance of purchases made in cash from the 'grey

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

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

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

bogus of alleged cash purchases credit under section 68 of the act 1 2015 – 16 20,17,69,283 33,33,334 2 2016 – 17 15,80,15,644 6,10,000 3 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 6,08,334 4 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,20,833 5 2019 – 20 12,52,40

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE vs. KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC)(JV), ULHASNAGAR,, ULHASNAGAR

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.

40 Taxman.com 494 has held that whether the assessee did purchase cloth and sell finished goods and purchasers were not traceable, profit element embedded in purchases would be subject to tax and not entire amount. From the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the assessee has made circular purchases and sales with 12 parties as declared