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

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

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 ()

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

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

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

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

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

purchases as well as bogus sales. It was the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities that no addition could be made in cases where the assessments have been unabated as on date of search, in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including the decision

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

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

purchases as well as bogus sales. It was the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities that no addition could be made in cases where the assessments have been unabated as on date of search, in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search. The assessee has relied upon plethora of judicial precedents including the decision

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25(3), MUMBAI vs. SPAN ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on bogus purchases to be held

PRANKIT EXPORTS, MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1441/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Prankit Exports, Ito 25(3)(2) 301 Shviling Apartments, Mumbai Juhu 10T H Road, V. Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafp2359K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

bogus purchases from hawala dealers." (vi) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating that purchases were made from some other parties which were not recorded in the books of accounts and only accommodation bills were obtained from hawala parties and there by attracting provisions of section 40A

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

40A(3) cannot be invoked. Merely because the parties are not traceable the assessee cannot be penalized for the same. M. As regard invoking the provisions of section 69C is concerned, the said section reds as under: "Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and offers no explanation, if any, offered

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

40A(3) of the Act because the assessee by getting the bogus bills from entry operators must have purchased material from the grey market. So according to the Ld. PCIT, the AO should have simultaneously while estimating the profit embedded in the bogus purchase ought to have examined the applicability of Section

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

40A(3) of the Act because the assessee by getting the bogus bills from entry operators must have purchased material from the grey market. So according to the Ld. PCIT, the AO should have simultaneously while estimating the profit embedded in the bogus purchase ought to have examined the applicability of Section

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

40A(3) of the Act because the assessee by getting the bogus bills from entry operators must have purchased material from the grey market. So according to the Ld. PCIT, the AO should have simultaneously while estimating the profit embedded in the bogus purchase ought to have examined the applicability of Section

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MANJULA S. SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

bogus purchases without verifying the fact that the assessee has shown the above purchases in the regular books of account and also shown the same in the closing stock in the regular return filed by the assessee. With regard to the disallowance made by the Id. CIT(A) under section 40A

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. CHIRAG CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

bogus purchases without verifying the fact that the assessee has shown the above purchases in the regular books of account and also shown the same in the closing stock in the regular return filed by the assessee. With regard to the disallowance made by the Id. CIT(A) under section 15 M/s Chirag Construction Co. 40A

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

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction of a reasonable amount of purchase price of the oil cakes in question in view of the fact that receipts of the materials in question by the assessee were supported by various registers

ASST CIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RADIANT GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-25(3), M/S Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6Th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aajfr3662E Co No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4146/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Radiant Gems, Acit-25(3), 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Room No.601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aajfr3662E

section 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases to be held as profit." 8. "The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above