KHANGARAM K DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

survey u/s. 133A, the Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the purchases to be bogus. Assessing Officer proceeded to hold

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

survey u/s. 133A, the Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the purchases to be bogus. Assessing Officer proceeded to hold

KHANGARAM K. DEWASI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Khangaram K. Dewasi, Prop. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Of Shreenathji Metal & Alloys, Mumbai-21 Shop No. 5, Sultan Market, Opp. Vs. Ash Krishna Bldg. Andheri Ghatkoper Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aeepd 8897 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ajeya Kumar Ojha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022

survey u/s. 133A, the Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the purchases to be bogus. Assessing Officer proceeded to hold

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus tyre purchase purchase bills without correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the In view of the facts and circumstances

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 ()

bogus purchases from certain parties. The facts borne out from the records are that when the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was in progress, there was a survey action u/s 133A

MAHAVIR CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singh

survey u/s 133A of the Act on 7.12.2011 the assessee in his statement under oath admitted that he had made purchases from fictitious concerns controlled by one Mafatlal Shah and other concerns referred to in Q.No. 7 of his statement. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred

DCIT CC 6(4), MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPOJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

u/s 133A of the Act on 16.08.2012. In the meantime, the revenue had received information from the Sales tax department of Maharashtra that certain dealers are indulging in providing accommodation bills without actually supplying materials. After comparing the purchases booked by the assessee with the information received from the Sales tax department, it was noticed that the assessee has purchased

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)

survey u/s 133A of the Act as well as the statement of Shri Pravin T. Agarwal recorded u/s 131 of the Act dated 24.03.2008 and his written confession submitted vide letter dated 02.11.2007 before the ADIT (Inv). On perusal thereof I find the appellant has shown purchases of alluminium and copper rods of Rs.3,82,69,759/- from M/s Shraddha

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

survey u/s 133A at his premises. The- reopening of assessment is bad in law and needs to be quashed." 5. We will first proceed with Ground No,2 in Assessee's appeal for alt assessment years under consideration. 5.1 Ground No.2 in Assessee's appeal for all the assessment years under consideration reads as under, expect that, the figures

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JAY FAB, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus purchases or not genuine purchases which are also not followed by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. The appellant has voluntarily declared the said amount at the time of survey action on the basis of additional offer which was accepted by the survey team. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not invoked

ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI vs. JATIN J.SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus purchases or not genuine purchases which are also not followed by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. The appellant has voluntarily declared the said amount at the time of survey action on the basis of additional offer which was accepted by the survey team. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not invoked