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

bogus purchases made by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to prove that purchase made were genuine. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the provisions of sections of section 69C of the Act which categorically states that where the assessee

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

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

89,04. As a result of elimination of purchases and sales, it has re-worked its income which resulted into reduction of income admitted in return filed u/s 139(1) of Rs.91.19 crores. Although, the assessee has eliminated income by Rs.91.19 crores, but in its submission before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had agreed to ignore such reduction because income

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

89,04. As a result of elimination of purchases and sales, it has re-worked its income which resulted into reduction of income admitted in return filed u/s 139(1) of Rs.91.19 crores. Although, the assessee has eliminated income by Rs.91.19 crores, but in its submission before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had agreed to ignore such reduction because income

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

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

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

Section 69C of the Act and addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 only to the extent of INR.5,89

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

purchase is concerned. Thus, the decision rendered in the case of Rajeev G. Kalathil (supra) cannot be said to be applicable in this case. Similarly, decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Nikunj Eximp (ITA No. 5604 of 2010) was rendered on the issue whether any substantial question of law was involved in that case. In fact

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

ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S CHINAR GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

section 147 of the Act.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in holding that the appellant has made bogus purchase of Rs.84,23,658/- during the course of search, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise

CHINAR GEMS,BG KHER ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 23(1)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER,MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. erred in holding that the appellant has made bogus purchase of Rs.84,23,658/- during the course of search, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise. ITAs

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

section 68 did not affect the addition made when transactions were found bogus. 6.2.20 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: 20 A.Y.2012-13 "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