GOVINDBHAI TRIBHUVANDAS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowance of purchases alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries. 4 ITA No.4322/M/2023 & ors. Shri Govindbhai Tribhuvandas Patel 6. We have heard

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SANDEEP RAMESH SHAH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer- Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah 19(3)(1), Piramal Reshmo Mac Tools Centre Chamber, Room No.405, 2/10, Summit House, Lalbaug Forjett Hill Road, Opp Mumbai – 400 012 Bhatia Hospital, Mumbai – 400036 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafps2666B Appellant .. Respondent

bogus/accommodation entries of purchases provided by certain parties as per the information provided by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. As per the information provided during the financial year 2010-11 the assessee had obtained the accommodation entries of purchases from the following parties: P a g e | 2 ITO-19(3)(1) Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah

INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHEETAL EXPORTS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2987/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), बिधम/ Sheetal Exports 2Nd Floor, Room No. 233, 202 Triveni 21 Lajpatrai Vs. Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Road, Vile Parle (W) Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400056 Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs0869L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & Dharmil Zaveri Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Directing The Ao To Restrict Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- From 100% To 3% Of The Bogus Purchases Made Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/-.

bogus/accommodation entries, but since the AO has accepted the sales (turn-over) of trading shown by the assessee, the entire purchases shown by assessee to the tune of Rs.2,67,00,986/- cannot be disallowed

NARENDRA SHANTILAL BAPNA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-28(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

disallowed and the entire amount received back as sales proceeds on sale of shares was added under section 68 of the act. 4. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition taking into account the facts narrated in the assessment order. He observed that the assessee was unable to file any satisfactory reply to justify the logic behind

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus/accommodation entries and the same has been brought\nto tax u/s.68 of the Act.\nIn view of the above stated facts, the addition made by the\nassessing officer is sustained and the appeal of the appellant on\nthese grounds is dismissed.\n6.0 Ground No.5 is directed against the addition of 51,860/- on\naccount of commission paid for getting accommodation

CHHAYA KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 33(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowance was upheld by ITAT, Chennai Bench.\n6. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the\ncase. It is evident that the AO made the addition u/s 68 of the Act\nwithout negating any of the evidences adduced by the assessee to\ndemonstrate the genuineness of the impugned transaction. None of\nthem have been controverted. The said transactions

ACIT-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. QMAX SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

bogus/accommodation entries of loan amounting to\nINR.16,00,00/- from hawala companies floated by Mr. Pravin Kumar\nJain. The Assessing Officer called on the Assessee to give justification\nfor the loan transactions in the books of accounts. The Assessee\nsubmitted the following details with regard to the loans obtained:\nSr.\nNo.\nName of the concern controlled and managed by\nShri

SALONI GIRRAJKISHOR AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

disallowance of the claim of LTCG on sale of shares of ESL. It is contended that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. It submitted before the AO, copies of the preferential allotment letter for purchase of shares, contract notes for sales, demat account statements showing holding period more than 12 months, bank statements evidencing receipt of sale proceeds

INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.MANDVI SALTS & LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance made by the ld.AO u/s. 14A r.w. rule 8D. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4. On the second issue relating to addition of Rs.5 crores on account of unexplained income towards share capital and share premium u/s. 68, assessee submitted that it had received share application money of Rs. 20 lacs and share premium

MUKTA AGRICULTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 with its sub grounds is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

bogus/accommodation entries and consequently made the addition @ 1% of such amount which worked out to Rs.40,08,601/- and added the same in the income of the Assessee. 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and filed the following documents as filed before the AO: “i Party wise details of purchases & sales

MYSTIC ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 3 with its sub grounds is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Mystic Electronics Ito Ward 10(3)(3) Limited Aaykar Bhavan, 401-A, Pearl Arcade, M.K. Road, Opp. P. K. Jwellers, Maharashtra- 400020. Vs. Dawood Baugh Lane, Off J. P. Road, Maharashtra- 400058. Pan: Aagcp1710R Appellant : Respondent

bogus/accommodation entries. 2. In doing so, the Id. CIT(A) did not appreciate that a. the AO could not have rejected the books of account without establishing the defects, incompleteness and inaccuracies in the accounts of the appellant as required u/s 145(3) of the Act. b. merely because the purchase & sale parties could not be produced, the same cannot

SHRIKANT FINCONSERY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus/accommodation entries in respect of loan received from the following parties: S.No. Name of Entity Amount (INR) 1. Lunkad Textiles Pvt Ltd. 10,00,000/- 2. Victory Sales Pvt Ltd. 5,40,500/- 3. B.K. Dying and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd 30,00,000/- 7.2. It was contended by the Appellant that no fresh loans were received from above three

SHRIKANT FINCONSERV PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, all three appeals preferred by the Appellant are allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

bogus/accommodation entries in respect of loan received from the following parties: S.No. Name of Entity Amount (INR) 1. Lunkad Textiles Pvt Ltd. 10,00,000/- 2. Victory Sales Pvt Ltd. 5,40,500/- 3. B.K. Dying and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd 30,00,000/- 7.2. It was contended by the Appellant that no fresh loans were received from above three

SHRI VIKRAM N. CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus/accommodation entry as alleged by the ld. AO. It is important to note that the operations and modus operandi of this regulated market does not in any way provide for any mechanism by which assessee can bring forth the identity of the buyers of his shares and their creditworthiness. Further, sale proceeds are received through the stock market process into

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 ()

bogus/accommodation Danco Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. Danco Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5022 & 5023/MUM/2024 entry from ‘One World One World group’ concern of bogu concern of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.9,37,20,787/ amounting to Rs.9,37,20,787/- in the period relevant to the in the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

entries\nobtained amounting to Rs.3,03,05,713/- in shape of sale of\nshares of Capital Trade Links should not be added in your total\nincome for the year under consideration.” Further, while\ndrawing conclusion in para 7 for making the assessment, ld. AO\nagain writes in similar manner as “In view of the elaborate\ndiscussion made above, I hereby

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHANKARLAL BHIMRAJ BHANSALI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

disallowance of the bogus purchase in entirety stating that the purchases shown from respective parties were found non-genuine and the decision of the ITAT was upheld by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and also Hon'ble Supreme Court.?” 8. “This appeal is being filed as it is covered under the exception provided in para 10(e) of the CBDT

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

disallowed purchases amounting to 37% of the purchases made from dealers listed in website of VAT Department of State of Maharashtra. The appeal of assessee for AY 2009-10 is taken as lead case [and will include in the discussion the action of AO for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12] and the result of which will be followed in other