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

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

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

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

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

bogus purchases. 14. In addition to the above, Assessing Officer further observed that during the year under consideration the assessee had advanced total loan amounting to ₹.35,18,600/- to various parties as mentioned in Para No. 24 of the Assessment Order. Assessing Officer noticed that no interest was charged by the assessee on the above loans and advances. Assessee

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

bogus purchases. 14. In addition to the above, Assessing Officer further observed that during the year under consideration the assessee had advanced total loan amounting to ₹.35,18,600/- to various parties as mentioned in Para No. 24 of the Assessment Order. Assessing Officer noticed that no interest was charged by the assessee on the above loans and advances. Assessee

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

section\n250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\") by the learned Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment\nyears 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.\n2. The only issue that arises for our consideration in the present cross\nappeals pertains to the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases by the\nassessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(1)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. M/S. CHINAR GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-appeal for the

section\n250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act\") by the learned Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment\nyears 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.\n2. The only issue that arises for our consideration in the present cross\nappeals pertains to the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases by the\nassessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KDM IMPEX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, in terms of our\naforesaid observations

bogus purchases has obseved as follows:\n“8. Ground No 2 to 5: These grounds have been raised\nagainst the action of the A.O in making an addition of 100%\nof the amount of purchases amounting Rs.2,73,56,857/-\nfrom M/s. Jewel Diam and M/s Rose Impex as income under\nsection 69C of the Act.\n6\nACIT

KALPESH RAMESHBHAI VYAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.4143/Mum/2023&ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

bogus purchases are amounting to.? 1,15,86,557/- for 1,89,475 kgs, which were sold for Rs,.1,22,08,684/- of identical kgs. Bills of purchases and bills of sales were also correlated. The assessee has also submitted the stock register before us. Assessee has also produced before channel, confirmation of accounts and other details for purchase