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

1) of the Act was processed s processed without carrying out any regular without carrying out any regular scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act, so the proviso to section 147 is not attracted. u/s 143(3) of the Act, so the proviso to section 147 is not attracted. u/s 143(3) of the Act, so the proviso to section

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

1) of the Act was processed s processed without carrying out any regular without carrying out any regular scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act, so the proviso to section 147 is not attracted. u/s 143(3) of the Act, so the proviso to section 147 is not attracted. u/s 143(3) of the Act, so the proviso to section

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

1. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.12,89,039/ addition of Rs.12,89,039/-, on account of purchase treated as , on account of purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

1. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.12,89,039/ addition of Rs.12,89,039/-, on account of purchase treated as , on account of purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra

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

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 : Mr. Mandar Vaidya Assessee by : Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DR Revenue by : 16/05/2024 Date of Hearing : 28/05/2024

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

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 : Mr. Mandar Vaidya Assessee by : Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DR Revenue by : 16/05/2024 Date of Hearing : 28/05/2024

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

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5% at Rs.6,24,809/ to disallow 12.5% at Rs.6,24,809/- of the bogus purchases of of the bogus purchases

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

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5% at Rs.6,24,809/ to disallow 12.5% at Rs.6,24,809/- of the bogus purchases of of the bogus purchases

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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 for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 cannot be sustained since penalty under Section 271AAC of the Act has already been levied in respect of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act in respect of the same purchases. It is clarified that we have already confirmed the order passed by the Learned

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

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

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

41,81,050/- in respect of th in respect of those 13 parties for assessment year se 13 parties for assessment year 2013-14 to 2020-21 as unexplained bogus purchases. 21 as unexplained bogus purchases. In the year 21 as unexplained bogus purchases. under consideration addition of Rs. 48, 04,750/ under consideration addition