DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

Appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

bogus purchase, scrap sale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in dairy. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs. 70,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established

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

Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained\nexpenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment year 2012-13\nWhether where assessee's sales figures were not doubted,\n100 per cent disallowance for bogus purchases was not\njustified by drawing adverse inference on his inability to\nproduce suppliers-Held, yes-Purchases were made by\nassessee from grey market -Making purchases through grey\nmarket

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

Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained\nexpenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment year 2012-13\nWhether where assessee's sales figures were not doubted,\n100 per cent disallowance for bogus purchases was not\njustified by drawing adverse inference on his inability to\nproduce suppliers-Held, yes-Purchases were made by\nassessee from grey market -Making purchases through grey\nmarket

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases, salary expenses, and finally, unexplained cash income and expenditure under sections 69A and 69C. 58.On each issue, we have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases, salary expenses, and finally, unexplained cash income and expenditure under sections 69A and 69C. 58.On each issue, we have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases, salary expenses, and finally, unexplained cash income and expenditure under sections 69A and 69C. 58.On each issue, we have

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income right to purchase an open plot and computed the total income as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned in the order. There was no as per the chart mentioned

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n\n6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law\nthe Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs.\n70,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the facts and\ncircumstances of the case established

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law\nthe Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs.\n70,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the facts and\ncircumstances of the case established

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law\nthe Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs.\n70,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the facts and\ncircumstances of the case established

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law\nthe Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs.\n70,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the facts and\ncircumstances of the case established

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

bogus purchases, salary\nexpenses, and finally, unexplained cash income and\nexpenditure under sections 69A and 69C.\n58.On each issue, we have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

bogus purchases, salary\nexpenses, and finally, unexplained cash income and\nexpenditure under sections 69A and 69C.\n\n58.On each issue

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

bogus purchase, scrap\nsale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in\ndairy.\n\n6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law\nthe Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs.\n70,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act ignoring the facts and\ncircumstances of the case established

MANASI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchaser. There was no necessity whatsoever for the assessee to have maintained the addresses of cash customers, the failure to maintain the same or to supply them as and when called for cannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to a suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the transactions. 1. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

DCIT CIRCLE511, MUMBAI vs. HATIM GLAZING AND CLADDING PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase which was added u/s.69C. 19. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the entire documents filed on record held that ld. AO has not found any discrepancy in the document submitted purchase bills, copy of the bank statement of the party as well as by the assessee and the Hatim Glazing and Cladding Pvt. Ltd payments made, ledger confirmation

DCIT CIRCLE511, MUMBAI vs. HATIM GLAZING AND CLADDING PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase which was added u/s.69C. 19. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the entire documents filed on record held that ld. AO has not found any discrepancy in the document submitted purchase bills, copy of the bank statement of the party as well as by the assessee and the Hatim Glazing and Cladding Pvt. Ltd payments made, ledger confirmation