SHRI. POONMARAM K. PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing appeals for A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11. Ld.CIT(A) in A.Y. 2009-10 has restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 25% of the bogus purchases made by the assessee by partly allowing the appeal

SHRI. POONMARAM K. PRAJAPATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-19(2)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) by way of filing appeals for A.Ys 2009-10 and 2010-11. Ld.CIT(A) in A.Y. 2009-10 has restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 25% of the bogus purchases made by the assessee by partly allowing the appeal

ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

purchases were bogus and not genuine. The discrepancies in certain bills could not be explained by the assessee in survey proceeding would not amount to concealment or inaccurate filing of particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The voluntary revised return filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO. The AO has simply

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JATIN J.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

purchases were bogus and not genuine. The discrepancies in certain bills could not be explained by the assessee in survey proceeding would not amount to concealment or inaccurate filing of particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The voluntary revised return filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO. The AO has simply

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

purchases were bogus and not genuine. The discrepancies in certain bills could not be explained by the assessee in survey proceeding would not amount to concealment or inaccurate filing of particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The voluntary revised return filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO. The AO has simply

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order dt. 23-06-2022. 7. The assessee

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

bogus purchases from three other parties, namely, Greenfield Overseas, Arihant International and Marque Global was brought to tax as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and assessed income was determined at Rs. 4,32,95,82,203/- and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed vide order dt. 23-06-2022. 7. The assessee

SHAH IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 34, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Shah Impex The Asst. Commissioner Of 412, Swastik Bisa, Business Income Tax-34, Park, Behind Wadhani Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Industrial Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaofs9058E

purchases were bogus and not genuine. The discrepancies in certain bills could not be explained by the assessee in survey proceeding would not amount to concealment or inaccurate filing of particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. The voluntary revised return filed by the assessee was accepted by the AO. The AO has simply

DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI vs. CENTAUR MERCHANTILE PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

bogus purchases were capitalized as CWIP. It was further held by the FAA that the 4 Centaur Mercantile Pvt.Ltd. CWIP has been reduced by the AO for the relevant year which will have a consequential effect of increasing the profits in the subsequent years when the income is booked as per the method of accounting followed by the assessee

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

purchased and sold mutual funds to the tune of Rs.133 crores. Hence it cannot be said that it did not use various resources of its business for the purpose of carrying above said activities. It is the submission of the assessee that the increase in investments is due to increase in shares of foreign subsidiaries, whose dividend income is taxable

ACIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GINI & JONY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1892 & 1893/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Acit 9(3)(2) M/S. Gini & Jony Ltd. 418, 4Th Floor, A-601, Citi Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Mumbai-400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059, स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg1295N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

5a[(7A) In case of a dealer, who has filed late return on or after the 1st August 2012, and has also paid the late fee, under sub- section (6) of section 20, the penalty in respect of such return, if any, imposed under sub-section (8) of this section, as it existed, shall not be recovered

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TITAN LABORATORIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. 9. The second grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 10. Briefly stated the facts are that, the Assessing Officer in the course

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. 9. The second grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 10. Briefly stated the facts are that, the Assessing Officer in the course

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

bogus purchases. Ground raised by the assessee on this issue is partly allowed. 9. The second grounds of appeal of the assessee is in respect of sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 10. Briefly stated the facts are that, the Assessing Officer in the course

DHARMIK EXIM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm M/S. Dharmik Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 9(1), Mumbai 106, Ruby Industrial Estate – 400 021 Chincholi Bunder Road Extn. Off Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3656N Appellant) .. Respondent)

bogus purchase. Assessee approached to the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 9-1-2012 after observing that, “it is the case of the assessee that the permanent account numbers of the 8 parties were in fact furnished during the course of assessment proceeding”, restored the appeal back to the file

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

bogus purchases was made on the technical reason that the said suppliers have not paid VAT amount, which would disentitle the assessee to claim VAT credit and hence the assessee cannot effectively prove the genuineness of purchases. If the re-revised VAT returns have been accepted by the VAT authorities and the assessee got the credit of VAT amount

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3)(CR)4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

bogus and the payments made against the same was held to be incurred for non- business purposes. The director of assessee company, Smt. Shobha Kapoor, in statement recorded on 02/05/2013 u/s 132(4) during search operations, while answering to question no.20, inter-alia, accepted that genuineness of the payment could not be proved in absence of supporting documents and therefore

BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

bogus and the payments made against the same was held to be incurred for non- business purposes. The director of assessee company, Smt. Shobha Kapoor, in statement recorded on 02/05/2013 u/s 132(4) during search operations, while answering to question no.20, inter-alia, accepted that genuineness of the payment could not be proved in absence of supporting documents and therefore