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

bogus purchases is M/s A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd. received accommodation entry from such party." received accommodation entry from such party." 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/ 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/ 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/-, however this appeal

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

bogus purchases is M/s A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd. received accommodation entry from such party." received accommodation entry from such party." 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/ 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/ 6. Though the tax effect in this case is Rs.3,41,042/-, however this appeal

KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -23(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

Section 68 did not affect the addition made when transactions were found bogus." 7.20. In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income- tax 120091 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: “12. Thus, it is apparent that both CIT(A) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the AO that the apparent sellers who had issued

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) ..

546/- were unexplained and disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee and computed the total income of Rs.41,10,187/-. In so far as the question of bogus purchases was concerned the Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's views that such purchases were allegedly made. Such notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities with the remark that the addresses

ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BABULAL U MUNOT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

section 68 did not affect the addition made when transactions were found bogus." 2.4.21 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 316 ITR274{Guj), it was held as under: "12. Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. REFRIGERATED DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

SATISH R. RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

section 68 did not affect the addition made when transactions were found bogus. 5.13 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income- tax 2009 316 ITR 274 (GUJ), it was held as under Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers

DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PCI ANALYTICS P.TLD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

546 were unexplained and disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee and computed the total income of Rs. 41, 10, 187 In so for as the question of bogus purchases was concerned, the Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's views that such purchases were made from bogus parties. The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had issued notices

ITO 29(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KETAN DHIRAJLAL GADA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negi

546/- were unexplained. He, therefore, disallowed such expenditure claimed by the assessee and computed the total income of Rs.41,10,187/-. The issue was carried in appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) who rejected the appeal, upon which the assessee went in further appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal substantially allowed the assessee

SKY GEM,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

546 44,66,235 14.2. Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A). It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that all the information/documents to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction were filed by the Appellant before the Assessing Officer. In respect of each of the purchases made, the Appellant had placed Copy of ITR Acknowledgment, Copy

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ARYA SHIP BREAKING CORPORTION, MUMBAI

section 133 (6) did not provide any information to support the allegation of bogus purchases,that the primary impetus behind availing bogus bills was to save on the GP rate, that the average GP rate of the assessee for the past three years was 7.09%. Considering the facts on record is and the judicial pronouncements disallowance made

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

bogus purchase to 50%. Accordingly, the same is upheld, and Ground No. (i) raised in its Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 15. The issue arising in Grounds No. (ii) to (iv), raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to restricting the addition made on account of on-money received by the assessee. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

546 (Guj) and Karjan Co-\noperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT\n(1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj).\n4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on\nthe assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to\nhave been made from the above mentioned parties, who have\ndenied any sales to the assessee before Sales Tax Authorities

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

546 (Guj) and Karjan Co-\noperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT\n(1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj).\n4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on\nthe assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to\nhave been made from the above mentioned parties, who have\ndenied any sales to the assessee before Sales Tax Authorities