OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2nd floor, 2nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. PAN NO. AAAFO 4997 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 14/12/2023 : Date of pronouncement 29/12/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

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

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

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

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

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

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

section 153A and submitted that there is no provision in the Act to make a fresh claim in return filed u/s 153A. The said provision is only for the benefit of the revenue, consequent upon a search. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in excluding 75% of bogus sales. The Ld.DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has adopted

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

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

section 153A and submitted that there is no provision in the Act to make a fresh claim in return filed u/s 153A. The said provision is only for the benefit of the revenue, consequent upon a search. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in excluding 75% of bogus sales. The Ld.DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has adopted

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

section 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

M/S. HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LT D SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. .CENT. CIR.-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus purchases in books of accounts of the group e in books of accounts of the group entities ntities amounting to M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 ₹57,37,26,731/-. In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the . In post search proceeding before the Investigation wing, this amount was revised to was revised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

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

47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013 assessment years 2013-14 to 2018- -19 respectively. As common issue-in in-disputes are involved in these appeals involved in these appeals , therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013 assessment years 2013-14 to 2018- -19 respectively. As common issue-in in-disputes are involved in these appeals involved in these appeals , therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013 assessment years 2013-14 to 2018- -19 respectively. As common issue-in in-disputes are involved in these appeals involved in these appeals , therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

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

47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013 assessment years 2013-14 to 2018- -19 respectively. As common issue-in in-disputes are involved in these appeals involved in these appeals , therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment years 2013 assessment years 2013-14 to 2018- -19 respectively. As common issue-in in-disputes are involved in these appeals involved in these appeals , therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this therefore