ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACTUBE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

bogus purchases made by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to prove that purchase made were genuine. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the provisions of sections of section 69C of the Act which categorically states that where the assessee

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

54,775/- totaling to Rs.2,41,77,979/ totaling to Rs.2,41,77,979/- was in the nature of was in the nature of accommodation entry and therefore, the asses accommodation entry and therefore, the assessee was asked to see was asked to substantiate the purchase transaction with purchase transaction with documentary evidence documentary evidences. In absence of any satisfactory

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

54,775/- totaling to Rs.2,41,77,979/ totaling to Rs.2,41,77,979/- was in the nature of was in the nature of accommodation entry and therefore, the asses accommodation entry and therefore, the assessee was asked to see was asked to substantiate the purchase transaction with purchase transaction with documentary evidence documentary evidences. In absence of any satisfactory

M/S. PARAS PLASTIC PROCESSORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

section 133(6) of the Act, but he also could not trace those parties at also could not trace those parties at the given address the given addresses. Accordingly the Assessing Officer Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate asked the assessee to substantiate the purchases by way of providing latest address of the parties, the purchases

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. Man Industries (I) Ltd. ITA Nos. 617, 618 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the 9.7 On perusal of the Para 3.2. of the order, it appears that the explanation provided by the appellant

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

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

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

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

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

bogus sales to the extent of Rs.862.57 crores, when investigation carried out during the course of remand proceedings did not yield desired results. Further, we are of the considered view that when the assessee is a habitual offender of falsification of its books of account by booking bogus purchases as well as bogus sales, so as to siphon

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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 ()

purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KHUSALDAS MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed by the AO that the assessee has made purchases of Rs. 6,93,56,301/-. The assessee was called upon to file the details of purchases like TIN, name & addresses of parties from whom the purchases were made. The assessee filed the details along with documentary evidences. Meanwhile, information was received

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) ..

54,000/-) being 10% of purchases of Rs.15,30,150/- holding that the estimate of profit @ 10% of disputed purchases will be fair and reasonable to cover up the difference of GP of purchases from specific parties as well as to plug any leakage of Revenue. Addition is confirmed arbitrarily ignoring the merits of the submissions