NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

BHAVESH PUNMAJI DEVASI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1) (2) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

condone the delay by moving an application supported with an affidavit that the appellant Shri Bhavesh Punmaji Devasi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) had filed an appeal against the assessment order in form 35 before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35 [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)], but the consultant of the assessee has neither

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ACON MEASUREMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 Income Tax (Appeal) considered various decisions held that the entire disputed purchases cannot be added and therefore, to plug the leakage of Revenue, estimated the suppressed income at the rate of 10% of the disputed purchases (i.e. 10% of Rs.50

MEHUL K. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3227/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Mehul K. Mehta, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Prop. Vaishnavi Enterprises 15(1)(3), V. Room No. 23, Mumbai. Building No. 18, Kapolwadi Building 3 Rd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acjpm 9707 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

condone delay of 54 days in filing this appeal with the tribunal by the assessee late beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of 1961 Act in the interest of justice. Thus, we admit this appeal and proceed to decide this appeal on merits. We order accordingly. 7. During the relevant previous year under consideration, the assessee had reported sales

M/S.BLAST CARBOBLOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singh

bogus purchases. Therefore, with the consent of parties, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by this common order. For appreciation of facts, the appeal for AY 2009-10 is treated as lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The delay in filing of present appeal may kindly be condoned

ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Astec Lifesciences Ltd. D C I T - 2(1) 3Rd Floor, Godrej One Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Vs. Pirojshnagar,Vikroli (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaaca4832D Appellant Respondent

condone the delay or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, unless genuine, correct and sufficient cause is demonstrated, such time-barred appeal cannot be admitted. 3.6 The appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last day of limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter, day by day, till

MAYUR SHRIMANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

delay is condoned. 3. So far as, the merits of the appeals are concerned, we have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made

NIKHIL R. DHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil R Dharia, Acit-19(2), B-7, Utkarsh Tilak Nagar, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ V. P. Road, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Addpd8065A

delay is condoned. 3. The next ground raised by the assessee, challenging the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). The ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Neha Paranjape, did not press this ground, therefore, it is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The only effective ground agitated by the ld. counsel

RAMESH KUMAR SAVALCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

delay condonation issuing of an Ad Interim Stay Order and an Absolute Stay Order and Paper Book after filing of this appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trader in steel and other metals in the name and style of M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industries, filed his return of income

SHRI RAMESHKUMAR SAVALACHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

delay condonation issuing of an Ad Interim Stay Order and an Absolute Stay Order and Paper Book after filing of this appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trader in steel and other metals in the name and style of M/s. Mahalaxmi Steel Industries, filed his return of income

ITO WD 2(5), KALYAN vs. HASMUKHARAI & CO., AMBERNATH

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

bogus purchase despite holding that the purchases were not genuine and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 2. During hearing, the Ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal, contended that both the appeals are delayed by 24 days. It was contended that the delay was due to the reason which was beyond the control of the department, therefore

ITO WD 2(5), KALYAN vs. HASMUKHARAI & CO., AMBERNATH

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

bogus purchase despite holding that the purchases were not genuine and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 2. During hearing, the Ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal, contended that both the appeals are delayed by 24 days. It was contended that the delay was due to the reason which was beyond the control of the department, therefore

HANS CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

bogus purchases was set aside. The Special Leave Petition against this order along with others has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.1. 2017 as under :- 7 ITA No.1193/Mum/2017. M/s.Hans Chemicals Private Limited. "'Delay Condoned

SHIVRAM BHOLANATH SHUKLA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sivram B. Shukla, The Ito 26(3)(2), (Proprietor Of Sharp Rubber), Room No. 508, 5Th Floor, 1, Lal Mohammed Compound, C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Andheri (East), Vs. B.K.C., Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ammps1931Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J Sheth (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2018

bogus purchases. 2. To grant the relief as per the other grounds of appeal. 6. There is a delay of 153 days in filing of the present appeal. Since, the assessee has filed an application for condonation

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases is not considered for enhanced deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act.” Page No. 38 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. 47. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is filed by the assessee with a delay of 598 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

bogus purchases is not considered for enhanced deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act.” Page No. 38 ITA NO. 2485 & 2486/MUM/2017 C.O. NO. 265 & 355/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. 47. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is filed by the assessee with a delay of 598 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in this regard

MR. ROHIT VALLABHDAS SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

condonation of delay of 2121 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. He placed strong reliance on the affidavit filed by the assessee notarised on 16.07.2025. Since the present appeal is against the revisionary order passed u/s.263 after a significant delay of almost six years, details and the factual position of the proceedings concluded earlier in this regard

ITO 31(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR NAGRAJ JAIN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

purchases cannot be disallowed. The gross profit for A.Y. 2007-08 was 3.55%, for A.Y. 2008-09 it was 3.38% and for A.Y. 2009-10 it was 2.61%. Considering the facts the learned CIT(A) took the average of the gross profit and directed to disallow the respective amounts as mentioned in the respective orders. Even the Revenue