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

73,432/-. While doing so he deleted the addition of Rs, 5 lakhs as made by the assessing Officer on the ground that the addition on account of bogus purchase had already been made. The Tribunal was of the opinion that twelve and half percent of the disputed purchases should be retained in the hands of the assessee as business

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

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

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

section 147 of the Act, but recorded his own satisfaction after applying his mind and analyzi his mind and analyzing the facts came to his knowledge. 7.16 At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture, it may not be out of place to highlight the At this juncture

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 ()

73,796/-as confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estima confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estimated profit margin 5% ted profit margin 5% of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919 of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919/-made from made from M/s. Harmony Exim Pv M/s. Harmony Exim Pvt. Ltd., basis

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 ()

73,796/-as confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estima confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT i.e. estimated profit margin 5% ted profit margin 5% of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919 of impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 9,14,75,919/-made from made from M/s. Harmony Exim Pv M/s. Harmony Exim Pvt. Ltd., basis

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

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 3 of Taxation and other axation and other laws (relaxation of certain laws (relaxation of certain provisions) ordinance, 2020, by ordinance, 2020, by way of notification issued, the time limit the time limit for passing the assessment order passing the assessment order was extended up to 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021. He submitted that though the 30/09/2021

V & V PHARMA INDUSTRIES,THANE vs. ACIT CIR. 3, THANE, THANE

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

73,566/- towards bogus purchases being unexplained expenditure under section 69C I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 on the allegation that the assessee

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

73. The Ld. AO observed that these hawala operators were providing only accommodation entries and the appellant was also in the list of beneficiaries. The Ld. AO has also held that payment through banking channel does not prove that purchases are genuine, and considering the nature of hawala transactions, production of purchase invoices etc also does not prove that purchases

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

SEA LINKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

bogus purchases in addition to income declared by the assessee and appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 was upheld by tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied upon the judgment dated 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Mohommad Haji Adam & Company

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) ..

73,432/-. While doing so he deleted the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as made by the assessing Officer on the ground that the addition on account of bogus purchase had already been made. The Tribunal was of the opinion that twelve and half percent of the disputed purchases should be retained in the hands of the assessee as business

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SHORELINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Prop. M/S Marine Plaza, Dur-Ul- R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Habib, 29, Marine Drive, Bldg., Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B

section 147 of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment orders before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 17% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeals and the assessee has filed the cross objection

PRATIBHA PIPES AND STRUCTURALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri. Ravish Sood ()

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,2887- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25(3), MUMBAI vs. SPAN ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 40A(3) attracts 100% bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on bogus purchases to be held as profit." Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NK the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

MIRAH DEKOR PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 14, MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

73,200/-. Addition made is in respect to two items as under:- i) Disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A Rs. 14.85.203/- ii) Bogus purchase Rs.4,59,58,347/- B) No amount is disallowable on account of bogus purchase as per submission made in ground Nos. 2 to 4. Addition for same u/s 115JB is unjustified. C) Disallowance out of purchases

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

73,220/-. While completing the assessment Assessing bogus purchases at ₹.67,51,584/- and income from house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee. A Search action u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A of Act were carried out at various premises on Ushdev Group on 11.09.2014. Consequent upon the search on Ushdev Group