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

70 alleged associates concerns were shown/designated as company's directors/partners or proprietors shown/designated as company's directors/partners or proprietors shown/designated as company's directors/partners or proprietors who have not possessed any knowledge of diamond business and all who have not possessed any knowledge of diamond business and all who have not possessed any knowledge of diamond business and all were

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

section 148 of the Act. In the present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. of pages of the information received from the of pages of the information received from the Sales

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

section 148 of the Act. In the present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. present case, there are no such allegations. Even looking to the No. of pages of the information received from the of pages of the information received from the Sales

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. The Revenue on the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of bogus the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of the other hand is aggrieved by reducing the addition of purchase to the extent of 5% of the purchases amount rather than purchase to the extent

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

70,80,590/– ₹ 7,080,590 expenditure under section 69C 2020 – 21 Nil Nil 19. Thus the learned assessing officer is aggrieved by the addition deleted by the learned CIT – A with respect to bogus purchases

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 ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

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 ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

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 ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

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 ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions

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 ()

section 115JB of the Act is lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable lesser than the tax under normal provisions, the assessee is liable to pay tax computed as per normal to pay tax computed as per normal provisions of the Act,” provisions