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 ()

purchases, secondly secondly, aggrieved for sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,48,660/- in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus

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 ()

purchases, secondly secondly, aggrieved for sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,48,660/- in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on in terms of section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus

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

PRATAP UTTAM PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI FORMALLY KNOWN AS ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Hon‟Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainpratap Uttam Purohit Vs. Dcit, Circle 42(1)(1) 307, Jalaram Business Formerly Known As Centre, Ganjawala Lane Acit 32(3) Borivali (W), S.O Kautilya Bhawan Mumbai – 400092. Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan,G Block Bkc Bandra East Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Ahcpp6451F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 29.01.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Pratap Uttam Purohit., Mumbai

purchasing agricultural land, since affidavits filed by assessee during assessment proceeding contained clear recital that sellers insisted for cash payment, their identity was not in doubt, and sale deeds were also admitted to be registered document, no disallowance under section 40A(3) was called for 14. Further Hon'ble Apex court in case of Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. reported

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.5714/Mum/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assessment Year : 2009-10

3 "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition done by the AO to 50% on account of bogus purchases by relying on decision of CIT(A) in the case of Samira Residences Pvt Ltd, without appreciating the fact that the genuineness of such purchases were

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. SALEM STEEL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 40A(3) would not be applicable and even if they are held to be applicable, the expenditure would be covered by the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(j) of the Rules. 16. It is a matter of fact that the goods were not received from the parties from whom it is shown to have been purchased but, such material

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for provisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the Assessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit was being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance was placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for provisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the Assessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit was being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance was placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for provisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the Assessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit was being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance was placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

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

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for provisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the Assessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit was being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance was placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DCIT-C-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA HABITATS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is\nupheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue's appeal is dismissed.\n15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue's appeal,\npertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by\nthe assessee.\n16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

purchase during the year?" 3. Question No. i arises out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in remanding the issue before the Assessing Officer for proper verification of facts. The record would suggest that the assessee, in view of its success before the Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of interest credited to Interest Suspense Account

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for \nprovisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the \nAssessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit \nwas being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance \nwas placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the \njudgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for\nprovisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the\nAssessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit\nwas being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance\nwas placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the\njudgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

bogus invoices were raised by the auto dealers for\nprovisions of services and reimbursement of expenses on the\nAssessee-company and in respect of the same CENVAT Credit\nwas being claimed by the Assessee incorrectly. While reliance\nwas placed by the Assessee on the decision of CESTAT and the\njudgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case

PRAKASH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

40A(3) of the Act at the rate of 10% as against the rate of 20% adopted by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issue Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2011-12 in appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order, dated 16/05/2012, passed in ITA No. 7213/Mum/2010 pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08, the Tribunal remanded the issue