GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

b) the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure. As per the facts mentioned above, the appellants contend that the pre-requisite to assume jurisdiction under section 69C are not satisfied as purchases cannot be treated as expenditure and hence, the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and requires to be deleted

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 ()

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 ()

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 ()

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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 ()

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

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

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

bogus suppliers. Please explain as to why all purchases should not be treated as cash purchases and treated as unaccounted expenditure u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 after credit of cheques debited in your account. In order to give you credit for cheque debited in your account and received cash from the accommodation entry providers, a working sheet

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

bogus suppliers. Please explain as to why all purchases should not be treated as cash purchases and treated as unaccounted expenditure u/s 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961 after credit of cheques debited in your account. In order to give you credit for cheque debited in your account and received cash from the accommodation entry providers, a working sheet

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

b) of the Act, submitted that in case where search carried out u/s 132, the AO is mandated to assess or re-assess total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the year in which the search is carried out. It may be noted that the text of the provision only talks of the AO being duty bound to assess