ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/-. In the said 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ 14.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.2,77,33,199/ Nirmit Jatin Lathia ITA Nos. 4784, 4828/MUM/2023 reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of reassessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/- in made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ assessment year 2009 t year 2009-10 and Rs.9,87,466/- in assessment year in assessment year

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) 145(3) of the Act and made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/- in made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ made addition for the entire bogus purchases of Rs.12,89,039/ assessment year 2009 t year 2009-10 and Rs.9,87,466/- in assessment year in assessment year

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

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

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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 ()

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for made by the Assessing Officer for bogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ under the head ‘fuel/diesel’ purchased from three purchased from three parties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was The facts qua the issue

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

DANCO ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

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

section 69C of the Act on account of purchases of various materials from M/s account of purchases of various materials from M/s account of purchases of various materials from M/s Basant Marketing Private Limited by treating them as Basant Marketing Private Limited by treating them as Basant Marketing Private Limited by treating them as alleged bogus purchases without appreciating

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

bogus purchases. It is important to note that the respondent-assessee has not challenged the additions sustained by the CIT (A) to the extent of 12.5% on the purchases made from M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders. P a g e | 15 ITA No. 2166& 2167Mum 2025 A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 M/s Romil Diam, Mumbai 12. Admittedly

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

section 24 of the prohibition of Benami property transaction act 1988 initiated against the recipient of the commission also held that these entities are not bogus. Accordingly he deleted the addition of Rs. 83,15,211/–. 014. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT – A the learned assessing officer is in appeal. The only ground is taken

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. MUKESH HIRACHAND SANGHVI, MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal ITA no

90,91,380/- as against the addition by the AO of 100% of bogus purchases\nwithout appreciating the fact that the assessee could neither produce any\ndelivery challans or the transport bills/invoices nor could produce the alleged\nparties from whom purchases were claimed to have been made during the year?\n3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

BHOOMI CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

Appeals are dismissed

bogus purchases and thereby brought to tax the cost/tax savings and profit element embedded in purchases made by the Assessee from grey market. The Assessee is not engaged in the trading activity and therefore, the judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. Mohd. Haji Adam & Co.: [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 459 (Bombay) [11-02-2019] relied upon by the Ld. Counsel

M/S ASHTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI CITY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

90,97,260/- made by the Assessing Officer for\nbogus purchases under the head ‘fuel/diesel' purchased from three\nparties. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee was\nregistered owner of more than 400 trucks and dumper trucks\nduring the year under consideration. In the impugned assessment\norder, the Assessing Officer held the purchases of fuel (diesel

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

section 143(3) / 147 was completed and the entire bogus purchases of Rs.88,17,762/- was taken and @25% was added back. The assessee submitted that the sale value of the bogus purchasesamount to Rs. 90